Daily Papers

Why do language models sometimes prefer correct statements even when trained on mixed-quality data? We introduce the Compression--Consistency Principle: next-token prediction favors hypotheses that allow shorter and more internally consistent descriptions of the training data. Truth bias emerges only when false alternatives are structurally harder to compress. We test this using small GPT-2-style character-level transformers (3.5M--86M parameters) on synthetic math corpora with controlled mixtures of correct and incorrect rules. In the random-error setting, models strongly prefer correct completions in paired evaluation: 83.1% accuracy at balanced data and 67.0% even when correct rules appear in only 10% of the corpus. Replacing random errors with a coherent but mathematically incorrect rule system largely eliminates the preference (near-chance accuracy). In a more natural-language-like synthetic world, the effect is weaker but still present (57.7%). Additional experiments show that embedding verification steps can restore preference for correctness even at small scale, while increasing the number of consistent rules produces a graded improvement in accuracy. Our results suggest that what appears as a "truth bias" is largely a side effect of compression pressure and preference for internal consistency, rather than an intrinsic drive toward truth. Full code and data are available at https://github.com/Rai220/compression-drives-truth.

Machine learning models can make critical errors that are easily hidden within vast amounts of data. Such errors often run counter to rules based on human intuition. However, rules based on human knowledge are challenging to scale or to even formalize. We thereby seek to infer statistical rules from the data and quantify the extent to which a model has learned them. We propose a framework SQRL that integrates logic-based methods with statistical inference to derive these rules from a model's training data without supervision. We further show how to adapt models at test time to reduce rule violations and produce more coherent predictions. SQRL generates up to 300K rules over datasets from vision, tabular, and language settings. We uncover up to 158K violations of those rules by state-of-the-art models for classification, object detection, and data imputation. Test-time adaptation reduces these violations by up to 68.7% with relative performance improvement up to 32%. SQRL is available at https://github.com/DebugML/sqrl.

Mathematical reasoning models are widely deployed in education, automated tutoring, and decision support systems despite exhibiting fundamental computational instabilities. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable reasoning pathways: 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways. Additionally, 8.8% of all predictions are silent failures -- confident yet incorrect outputs. Through comprehensive analysis using novel faithfulness metrics, we reveal: (1) reasoning quality shows weak negative correlation with correctness (r=-0.21, p=0.002), reflecting a binary classification threshold artifact rather than a monotonic inverse relationship; (2) scaling from 1.5B to 7B parameters (4.7x increase) provides zero accuracy benefit on our evaluated subset (6% of GSM8K), requiring validation on the complete benchmark; and (3) latent reasoning employs diverse computational strategies, with ~20% sharing CoT-like patterns. These findings highlight that benchmark accuracy can mask computational unreliability, demanding evaluation reforms measuring stability beyond single-sample metrics.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions rather than well-posed questions that are demonstrably false. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophantic behavior.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become central to mathematical reasoning in large language models, yet models remain brittle to early errors: a single arithmetic slip or unjustified inference typically propagates uncorrected to an incorrect final answer. We investigate whether training on intentionally flawed reasoning traces can teach models to detect and recover from such errors without degrading standard problem-solving ability. Using competition-level problems from MATH-lighteval, we generate CoT prefixes containing exactly one controlled error, either a calculation error (sign flips, dropped terms) or a reasoning error (misapplied rules, unjustified logical steps), and fine-tune Qwen3-4B with GRPO using a binary final-answer reward. Our Mixed-CoT-RL model matches standard RL on clean problems (41% vs 41%) while substantially outperforming it on problems prefilled with flawed reasoning (24% vs 19%). Notably, clean-only RL fine-tuning degrades robustness below the untuned baseline 19% vs. 20%), indicating that conventional training increases susceptibility to misleading prefills. Among error types, training on reasoning errors yields greater robustness gains than calculation errors alone, with mixed training performing best. These findings demonstrate that exposure to flawed traces during training can improve error-recovery behavior without sacrificing accuracy, suggesting a path toward more robust mathematical reasoning in LLMs.

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

This paper introduces RuleArena, a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning. Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions that demand long-context understanding, logical reasoning, and accurate mathematical computation. Two key attributes distinguish RuleArena from traditional rule-based reasoning benchmarks: (1) it extends beyond standard first-order logic representations, and (2) it is grounded in authentic, practical scenarios, providing insights into the suitability and reliability of LLMs for real-world applications. Our findings reveal several notable limitations in LLMs: (1) they struggle to identify and apply the appropriate rules, frequently becoming confused by similar but distinct regulations, (2) they cannot consistently perform accurate mathematical computations, even when they correctly identify the relevant rules, and (3) in general, they perform poorly in the benchmark. These results highlight significant challenges in advancing LLMs' rule-guided reasoning capabilities in real-life applications.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling. To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary {0,1} during training. This choice carries a cost: it introduces false negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and false positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs). For instance, a rule-based checker may mark the correct fraction 12{36} as wrong when compared against the canonical 1{3} due to brittle parsing/equivalence rules (FN), while a large language model (LLM) judges can be gamed by superficial cues or even a single adversarial token, yielding inflated correctness for wrong solutions (FP). We formalize verifier unreliability by modeling the verifier as a stochastic reward channel with asymmetric noise rates. From this abstraction, we derive two correction algorithms for verifier errors. The first is a backward correction that de-biases the observed binary reward to recover an unbiased estimator of the clean policy gradient. The second is a forward correction that reweights score-function terms so that the expected update direction aligns with the clean gradient; notably, it requires only the FN rate. We implement both as lightweight hooks in a group relative policy optimization (GRPO)-based RLVR pipeline and evaluate them on math-reasoning models and benchmarks. Across models and datasets, both corrections improve over uncorrected training; the forward variant converges faster and remains stable under heavier noise. Finally, we show a practical appeal mechanism in which a lightweight LLM verifier estimates the FN rate online by rechecking rule-based negatives, obtaining outperformance compared with other state-of-the-art contenders.

Large reasoning models (e.g., R1, o3) have demonstrated remarkable mathematical problem-solving abilities. However, the high reported accuracy of these advanced models on popular datasets, reliance on purely numerical evaluation and potential benchmark leakage, often masks their true reasoning shortcomings. To address this, we propose leveraging the inherent rigor and methodological complexity of mathematical proofs as a diagnostic tool to expose these hidden failures. Specifically, we introduce the RFMDataset (Reveal Failure Modes), a collection of 200 diverse mathematical proof problems, and thoroughly evaluate advanced models' performance on it. Our in-depth analysis of their failures uncovers 10 fine-grained error types, which shows fundamental limitations in current large reasoning models: 1) large reasoning models grapple profoundly with mathematical proofs, with some generating entirely correct proofs for less than 20% of problems and failing even on basic ones; 2) models exhibit a diverse spectrum of reasoning failures, prominently demonstrating the lack of guarantees for the correctness and rigor of single-step reasoning; and 3) models show hallucination and incompleteness during the reasoning process. Our findings reveal that models' self-reflection is insufficient to resolve the current logical dilemmas, necessitating formalized and fine-grained logical training.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

Accurate mathematical reasoning with Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial in revolutionizing domains that heavily rely on such reasoning. However, LLMs often encounter difficulties in certain aspects of mathematical reasoning, leading to flawed reasoning and erroneous results. To mitigate these issues, we introduce a novel mechanism, the Chain of Self-Correction (CoSC), specifically designed to embed self-correction as an inherent ability in LLMs, enabling them to validate and rectify their own results. The CoSC mechanism operates through a sequence of self-correction stages. In each stage, the LLMs generate a program to address a given problem, execute this program using program-based tools to obtain an output, subsequently verify this output. Based on the verification, the LLMs either proceed to the next correction stage or finalize the answer. This iterative self-correction process allows the LLMs to refine their reasoning steps and improve the accuracy of their mathematical reasoning. To enable the CoSC mechanism at a low cost, we employ a two-phase finetuning approach. In the first phase, the LLMs are trained with a relatively small volume of seeding data generated from GPT-4, establishing an initial CoSC capability. In the second phase, the CoSC capability is further enhanced by training with a larger volume of self-generated data using the trained model in the first phase, without relying on the paid GPT-4. Our comprehensive experiments demonstrate that CoSC significantly improves performance on traditional mathematical datasets among existing open-source LLMs. Notably, our CoSC-Code-34B model achieved a 53.5% score on MATH, the most challenging mathematical reasoning dataset in the public domain, surpassing the performance of well-established models such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, and even multi-modal LLMs like GPT-4V, Gemini-1.0 Pro, and Gemini-1.0 Ultra.

LLM-based formal proof assistants (e.g., in Lean) hold great promise for automating mathematical discovery. But beyond syntactic correctness, do these systems truly understand mathematical structure as humans do? We investigate this question through the lens of mathematical inequalities -- a fundamental tool across many domains. While modern provers can solve basic inequalities, we probe their ability to handle human-intuitive compositionality. We introduce Ineq-Comp, a benchmark built from elementary inequalities through systematic transformations, including variable duplication, algebraic rewriting, and multi-step composition. Although these problems remain easy for humans, we find that most provers -- including Goedel, STP, and Kimina-7B -- struggle significantly. DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B shows relative robustness -- possibly because it is trained to decompose the problems into sub-problems -- but still suffers a 20\% performance drop (pass@32). Strikingly, performance remains poor for all models even when formal proofs of the constituent parts are provided in context, revealing that the source of weakness is indeed in compositional reasoning. Our results expose a persisting gap between the generalization behavior of current AI provers and human mathematical intuition.

Trustworthy verifiers are essential for the success of reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR), which is the core methodology behind various large reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1. In complex domains like mathematical reasoning, rule-based verifiers have been widely adopted in previous works to train strong reasoning models. However, the reliability of these verifiers and their impact on the RL training process remain poorly understood. In this work, we take mathematical reasoning as a case study and conduct a comprehensive analysis of various verifiers in both static evaluation and RL training scenarios. First, we find that current open-source rule-based verifiers often fail to recognize equivalent answers presented in different formats across multiple commonly used mathematical datasets, resulting in non-negligible false negative rates. This limitation adversely affects RL training performance and becomes more pronounced as the policy model gets stronger. Subsequently, we investigate model-based verifiers as a potential solution to address these limitations. While the static evaluation shows that model-based verifiers achieve significantly higher verification accuracy, further analysis and RL training results imply that they are highly susceptible to hacking, where they misclassify certain patterns in responses as correct (i.e., false positives). This vulnerability is exploited during policy model optimization, leading to artificially inflated rewards. Our findings underscore the unique risks inherent to both rule-based and model-based verifiers, aiming to offer valuable insights to develop more robust reward systems in reinforcement learning.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that "the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof". We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework Safe. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework Safe across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose FormalStep as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with 30,809 formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying natural language content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.

Current evaluation of mathematical reasoning in language models relies primarily on answer accuracy, potentially masking fundamental failures in logical computation. We introduce a diagnostic framework that distinguishes genuine mathematical reasoning from superficial pattern matching through four complementary axes: forward-backward consistency, transitivity coverage, counterfactual sensitivity, and perturbation robustness. Through a case study applying this framework to Qwen3-0.6B on the MenatQA dataset, we reveal a striking disconnect between surface performance and reasoning fidelity. While the model achieves reasonable answer accuracy (70%+), it demonstrates poor backward consistency (15%), limited transitivity coverage (32.2%), and brittle sensitivity to perturbations. Our diagnostics expose reasoning failures invisible to traditional accuracy metrics, suggesting that this small model relies heavily on pattern matching rather than genuine logical computation. While our empirical findings are based on a single 600M-parameter model, the diagnostic framework itself is model-agnostic and generalizable. We release our evaluation protocols to enable the research community to assess reasoning fidelity across different model scales and architectures, moving beyond surface-level accuracy toward verifiable mathematical reasoning.

Despite the superior performance of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), their reasoning behaviors are often counterintuitive, leading to suboptimal reasoning capabilities. To theoretically formalize the desired reasoning behaviors, this paper presents the Laws of Reasoning (LoRe), a unified framework that characterizes intrinsic reasoning patterns in LRMs. We first propose compute law with the hypothesis that the reasoning compute should scale linearly with question complexity. Beyond compute, we extend LoRe with a supplementary accuracy law. Since the question complexity is difficult to quantify in practice, we examine these hypotheses by two properties of the laws, monotonicity and compositionality. We therefore introduce LoRe-Bench, a benchmark that systematically measures these two tractable properties for large reasoning models. Evaluation shows that most reasoning models exhibit reasonable monotonicity but lack compositionality. In response, we develop an effective finetuning approach that enforces compute-law compositionality. Extensive empirical studies demonstrate that better compliance with compute laws yields consistently improved reasoning performance on multiple benchmarks, and uncovers synergistic effects across properties and laws. Project page: https://lore-project.github.io/

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in critical domains like healthcare, justice, and social services has sparked numerous regulatory initiatives aimed at ensuring their safe deployment. Current regulatory frameworks, exemplified by recent US and EU efforts, primarily focus on procedural guidelines while presuming that scientific benchmarking can effectively validate AI safety, similar to how crash tests verify vehicle safety or clinical trials validate drug efficacy. However, this approach fundamentally misunderstands the unique technical challenges posed by modern AI systems. Through systematic analysis of successful technology regulation case studies, we demonstrate that effective scientific regulation requires a causal theory linking observable test outcomes to future performance - for instance, how a vehicle's crash resistance at one speed predicts its safety at lower speeds. We show that deep learning models, which learn complex statistical patterns from training data without explicit causal mechanisms, preclude such guarantees. This limitation renders traditional regulatory approaches inadequate for ensuring AI safety. Moving forward, we call for regulators to reckon with this limitation, and propose a preliminary two-tiered regulatory framework that acknowledges these constraints: mandating human oversight for high-risk applications while developing appropriate risk communication strategies for lower-risk uses. Our findings highlight the urgent need to reconsider fundamental assumptions in AI regulation and suggest a concrete path forward for policymakers and researchers.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities in structured reasoning and symbolic tasks, with coding emerging as a particular area of strength. This success has sparked growing interest in applying LLMs to mathematics, both in informal problem-solving and formal theorem proving. However, progress in formal mathematics has proven to be significantly more difficult, despite surface-level similarities between programming and proof construction. This discrepancy raises important questions about how LLMs ``reason'', how they are supervised, and whether they internally track a notion of computational or deductive state. In this article, we address the state-of-the-art of the discipline, focusing on recent models and benchmarks, and explore three central issues at the intersection of machine learning and mathematical cognition: (i) the trade-offs between formal and informal mathematics as training domains; (ii) the deeper reasons why proof generation remains more brittle than code synthesis; (iii) and the question of whether LLMs represent, or merely mimic, a notion of evolving logical state. Our goal is not to draw hard boundaries, but to identify where the current limits lie, and how they might be extended.

Hierarchical reasoning model (HRM) achieves extraordinary performance on various reasoning tasks, significantly outperforming large language model-based reasoners. To understand the strengths and potential failure modes of HRM, we conduct a mechanistic study on its reasoning patterns and find three surprising facts: (a) Failure of extremely simple puzzles, e.g., HRM can fail on a puzzle with only one unknown cell. We attribute this failure to the violation of the fixed point property, a fundamental assumption of HRM. (b) "Grokking" dynamics in reasoning steps, i.e., the answer is not improved uniformly, but instead there is a critical reasoning step that suddenly makes the answer correct; (c) Existence of multiple fixed points. HRM "guesses" the first fixed point, which could be incorrect, and gets trapped there for a while or forever. All facts imply that HRM appears to be "guessing" instead of "reasoning". Leveraging this "guessing" picture, we propose three strategies to scale HRM's guesses: data augmentation (scaling the quality of guesses), input perturbation (scaling the number of guesses by leveraging inference randomness), and model bootstrapping (scaling the number of guesses by leveraging training randomness). On the practical side, by combining all methods, we develop Augmented HRM, boosting accuracy on Sudoku-Extreme from 54.5% to 96.9%. On the scientific side, our analysis provides new insights into how reasoning models "reason".

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks, including logical puzzle games that require deriving solutions satisfying all constraints. However, whether they can flexibly apply appropriate rules to varying conditions, particularly when faced with non-canonical game variants, remains an open question. Existing corpora focus on popular puzzles like 9x9 Sudoku, risking overfitting to canonical formats and memorization of solution patterns, which can mask deficiencies in understanding novel rules or adapting strategies to new variants. To address this, we introduce HardcoreLogic, a challenging benchmark of over 5,000 puzzles across 10 games, designed to test the robustness of LRMs on the "long-tail" of logical games. HardcoreLogic systematically transforms canonical puzzles through three dimensions: Increased Complexity (IC), Uncommon Elements (UE), and Unsolvable Puzzles (UP), reducing reliance on shortcut memorization. Evaluations on a diverse set of LRMs reveal significant performance drops, even for models achieving top scores on existing benchmarks, indicating heavy reliance on memorized stereotypes. While increased complexity is the dominant source of difficulty, models also struggle with subtle rule variations that do not necessarily increase puzzle difficulty. Our systematic error analysis on solvable and unsolvable puzzles further highlights gaps in genuine reasoning. Overall, HardcoreLogic exposes the limitations of current LRMs and establishes a benchmark for advancing high-level logical reasoning.

Despite high benchmark scores, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail simple problem, raising a critical question: Do LLMs learn mathematical principles or merely memorize patterns? Rather than designing increasingly complex benchmarks like recent works, we investigate this using elementary two-integer addition (0 to 2^{64}), probing two core properties: commutativity (A+B=B+A) and compositional generalization (via isomorphic symbolic mappings, e.g., 7 rightarrow y). While state-of-the-art LLMs achieve 73.8-99.8\% accuracy on numerical addition, performance collapses to leq7.5\% under symbolic mapping, indicating failure to generalize learned rules. Non-monotonic performance scaling with digit count and frequent commutativity violations (over 1,700 cases of A+B neq B+A) further support this. Explicitly providing addition rules degrades performance by 81.2\% on average, while self-explanation maintains baseline accuracy, suggesting LLM arithmetic processing is misaligned with human-defined principles. Our findings indicate current LLMs rely on memory pattern over genuine rule learning, highlighting architectural limitations and the need for new approaches to achieve true mathematical reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. However, there are increasing debates regarding whether these models truly understand and apply mathematical knowledge or merely rely on shortcuts for mathematical reasoning. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations. We introduce the adversarial grade school math (\datasetname) dataset, an extension of GSM8K augmented with various mathematical perturbations. Our experiments on 25 LLMs and 4 prompting techniques show that while LLMs exhibit different levels of math reasoning abilities, their performances are far from robust. In particular, even for problems that have been solved in GSM8K, LLMs can make mistakes when new statements are added or the question targets are altered. We also explore whether more robust performance can be achieved by composing existing prompting methods, in which we try an iterative method that generates and verifies each intermediate thought based on its reasoning goal and calculation result. Code and data are available at https://github.com/qtli/GSM-Plus.

We study how to subvert large language models (LLMs) from following prompt-specified rules. We first formalize rule-following as inference in propositional Horn logic, a mathematical system in which rules have the form "if P and Q, then R" for some propositions P, Q, and R. Next, we prove that although small transformers can faithfully follow such rules, maliciously crafted prompts can still mislead both theoretical constructions and models learned from data. Furthermore, we demonstrate that popular attack algorithms on LLMs find adversarial prompts and induce attention patterns that align with our theory. Our novel logic-based framework provides a foundation for studying LLMs in rule-based settings, enabling a formal analysis of tasks like logical reasoning and jailbreak attacks.

Large language models now solve many benchmark math problems at near-expert levels, yet this progress has not fully translated into reliable performance in real-world applications. We study this gap through contextual mathematical reasoning, where the mathematical core must be formulated from descriptive scenarios. We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings: Scenario Grounding (SG), which embeds abstract problems into realistic narratives without increasing reasoning complexity, and Complexity Scaling (CS), which transforms explicit conditions into sub-problems to capture how constraints often appear in practice. Evaluating 61 proprietary and open-source models, we observe sharp drops: on average, open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20. Error analysis shows that errors are dominated by incorrect problem formulation, with formulation accuracy declining as original problem difficulty increases. Correct formulation emerges as a prerequisite for success, and its sufficiency improves with model scale, indicating that larger models advance in both understanding and reasoning. Nevertheless, formulation and reasoning remain two complementary bottlenecks that limit contextual mathematical problem solving. Finally, we find that fine-tuning with scenario data improves performance, whereas formulation-only training is ineffective. However, performance gaps are only partially alleviated, highlighting contextual mathematical reasoning as a central unsolved challenge for LLMs.

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or tradeoffs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: Maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented. (2) Epistemological Completeness: The use of multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics allows for a more comprehensive capture of multifaceted ethical concepts, thereby preserving greater informational fidelity about these concepts than any single, simplified definition. (3) Implicit Regularization: Jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to one specific metric, steering models towards solutions with enhanced generalization and robustness under real-world complexities. In contrast, efforts to enforce theoretical consistency by simplifying or pruning metrics risk narrowing this value diversity, losing conceptual depth, and degrading model performance. We therefore advocate for a shift in RAI theory and practice: from getting trapped in inconsistency to characterizing acceptable inconsistency thresholds and elucidating the mechanisms that permit robust, approximated consistency in practice.

As language models regularly make mistakes when solving math problems, automated identification of errors in the reasoning process becomes increasingly significant for their scalable oversight. In this paper, we introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning. It consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems. Each test case contains a step-by-step solution with error location annotated by human experts. Models are required to identify the earliest step that contains an error, or conclude that all steps are correct. We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models, where for the latter we prompt general language models to critique each solution step by step. We draw two main observations: (1) Existing PRMs typically fail to generalize to more challenging math problems beyond GSM8K and MATH. They underperform both critic models (i.e., prompted general language models) and our own trained PRM that is straightforwardly fine-tuned on the PRM800K dataset. (2) The best open-source model, QwQ-32B-Preview, has demonstrated the critique capability competitive with the proprietary model GPT-4o, despite that it still lags behind the reasoning-specialized o1-mini. We hope ProcessBench can foster future research in reasoning process assessment, paving the way toward scalable oversight of language models.

Benchmarks measure whether a model is correct. They do not measure whether a model is reliable. This distinction is largely academic for single-shot inference, but becomes critical for agentic AI systems, where a single rephrased prompt can trigger cascading failures in multi-step execution. Yet this form of instability is not captured by existing evaluations. Hallucinations live in variance: they arise when semantically equivalent prompts activate inconsistent internal pathways, producing divergent outputs. Consistent but incorrect outputs reflect bias or missing knowledge; confident guessing reflects calibration failure. Neither constitutes hallucination under this definition. When error is variance-dominated, reducing redundant pathways improves reliability without adding knowledge. We formalize this through Semantic Stability (SS), measured via Paraphrase Consistency (PC@k): generate k paraphrases, greedy decode each, compute mode agreement. SS is a diagnostic for variance-driven unreliability, not a method for improving correctness. We show that a dense Qwen3-0.6B agrees with itself only 23.8% of the time; at 32% sparsity, agreement jumps to 55.9%. A phase diagram reveals the sweet spot where variance reduction outpaces bias accumulation, and regimes where stability collapses onto wrong answers.

Increasing interest in reasoning models has led math to become a prominent testing ground for algorithmic and methodological improvements. However, existing open math datasets either contain a small collection of high-quality, human-written problems or a large corpus of machine-generated problems of uncertain quality, forcing researchers to choose between quality and quantity. In this work, we present Big-Math, a dataset of over 250,000 high-quality math questions with verifiable answers, purposefully made for reinforcement learning (RL). To create Big-Math, we rigorously filter, clean, and curate openly available datasets, extracting questions that satisfy our three desiderata: (1) problems with uniquely verifiable solutions, (2) problems that are open-ended, (3) and problems with a closed-form solution. To ensure the quality of Big-Math, we manually verify each step in our filtering process. Based on the findings from our filtering process, we introduce 47,000 new questions with verified answers, Big-Math-Reformulated: closed-ended questions (i.e. multiple choice questions) that have been reformulated as open-ended questions through a systematic reformulation algorithm. Compared to the most commonly used existing open-source datasets for math reasoning, GSM8k and MATH, Big-Math is an order of magnitude larger, while our rigorous filtering ensures that we maintain the questions most suitable for RL. We also provide a rigorous analysis of the dataset, finding that Big-Math contains a high degree of diversity across problem domains, and incorporates a wide range of problem difficulties, enabling a wide range of downstream uses for models of varying capabilities and training requirements. By bridging the gap between data quality and quantity, Big-Math establish a robust foundation for advancing reasoning in LLMs.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged to be a predominant paradigm for mathematical reasoning tasks, offering stable improvements in reasoning ability. However, Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) in RLVR are too coarse-grained to distinguish flawed reasoning within correct answers or valid reasoning within incorrect answers. This lack of granularity introduces noisy and misleading gradients significantly and hinders further progress in reasoning process quality. While Process Reward Models (PRMs) offer fine-grained guidance for intermediate steps, they frequently suffer from inaccuracies and are susceptible to reward hacking. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce PRocess cOnsistency Filter (PROF), an effective data process curation method that harmonizes noisy, fine-grained process rewards with accurate, coarse-grained outcome rewards. Rather than naively blending PRM and ORM in the objective function (arXiv:archive/2506.18896), PROF leverages their complementary strengths through consistency-driven sample selection. Our approach retains correct responses with higher averaged process values and incorrect responses with lower averaged process values, while maintaining positive/negative training sample balance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method not only consistently improves the final accuracy over 4% compared to the blending approaches, but also strengthens the quality of intermediate reasoning steps. Codes and training recipes are available at https://github.com/Chenluye99/PROF.

AI for Mathematics (AI4Math) has emerged as a distinct field that leverages machine learning to navigate mathematical landscapes historically intractable for early symbolic systems. While mid-20th-century symbolic approaches successfully automated formal logic, they faced severe scalability limitations due to the combinatorial explosion of the search space. The recent integration of data-driven approaches has revitalized this pursuit. In this review, we provide a systematic overview of AI4Math, highlighting its primary focus on developing AI models to support mathematical research. Crucially, we emphasize that this is not merely the application of AI to mathematical activities; it also encompasses the development of stronger AI systems where the rigorous nature of mathematics serves as a premier testbed for advancing general reasoning capabilities. We categorize existing research into two complementary directions: problem-specific modeling, involving the design of specialized architectures for distinct mathematical tasks, and general-purpose modeling, focusing on foundation models capable of broader reasoning, retrieval, and exploratory workflows. We conclude by discussing key challenges and prospects, advocating for AI systems that go beyond facilitating formal correctness to enabling the discovery of meaningful results and unified theories, recognizing that the true value of a proof lies in the insights and tools it offers to the broader mathematical landscape.

An AI system can create and maintain knowledge only to the extent that it can verify that knowledge itself. Recent work on long Chain-of-Thought reasoning has demonstrated great potential of LLMs on solving competitive problems, but their verification ability remains to be weak and not sufficiently investigated. In this paper, we propose Heimdall, the long CoT verification LLM that can accurately judge the correctness of solutions. With pure reinforcement learning, we boost the verification accuracy from 62.5% to 94.5% on competitive math problems. By scaling with repeated sampling, the accuracy further increases to 97.5%. Through human evaluation, Heimdall demonstrates impressive generalization capabilities, successfully detecting most issues in challenging math proofs, the type of which is not included during training. Furthermore, we propose Pessimistic Verification to extend the functionality of Heimdall to scaling up the problem solving. It calls Heimdall to judge the solutions from a solver model and based on the pessimistic principle, selects the most likely correct solution with the least uncertainty. Taking DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B as the solver model, Pessimistic Verification improves the solution accuracy on AIME2025 from 54.2% to 70.0% with 16x compute budget and to 83.3% with more compute budget. With the stronger solver Gemini 2.5 Pro, the score reaches 93.0%. Finally, we prototype an automatic knowledge discovery system, a ternary system where one poses questions, another provides solutions, and the third verifies the solutions. Using the data synthesis work NuminaMath for the first two components, Heimdall effectively identifies problematic records within the dataset and reveals that nearly half of the data is flawed, which interestingly aligns with the recent ablation studies from NuminaMath.

Reward models are key in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) systems, aligning the model behavior with human preferences. Particularly in the math domain, there have been plenty of studies using reward models to align policies for improving reasoning capabilities. Recently, as the importance of reward models has been emphasized, RewardBench is proposed to understand their behavior. However, we figure out that the math subset of RewardBench has different representations between chosen and rejected completions, and relies on a single comparison, which may lead to unreliable results as it only see an isolated case. Therefore, it fails to accurately present the robustness of reward models, leading to a misunderstanding of its performance and potentially resulting in reward hacking. In this work, we introduce a new design for reliable evaluation of reward models, and to validate this, we construct RewardMATH, a benchmark that effectively represents the robustness of reward models in mathematical reasoning tasks. We demonstrate that the scores on RewardMATH strongly correlate with the results of optimized policy and effectively estimate reward overoptimization, whereas the existing benchmark shows almost no correlation. The results underscore the potential of our design to enhance the reliability of evaluation, and represent the robustness of reward model. We make our code and data publicly available.

Ongoing efforts that span over decades show a rise of AI methods for accelerating scientific discovery, yet accelerating discovery in mathematics remains a persistent challenge for AI. Specifically, AI methods were not effective in creation of formulas for mathematical constants because each such formula must be correct for infinite digits of precision, with "near-true" formulas providing no insight toward the correct ones. Consequently, formula discovery lacks a clear distance metric needed to guide automated discovery in this realm. In this work, we propose a systematic methodology for categorization, characterization, and pattern identification of such formulas. The key to our methodology is introducing metrics based on the convergence dynamics of the formulas, rather than on the numerical value of the formula. These metrics enable the first automated clustering of mathematical formulas. We demonstrate this methodology on Polynomial Continued Fraction formulas, which are ubiquitous in their intrinsic connections to mathematical constants, and generalize many mathematical functions and structures. We test our methodology on a set of 1,768,900 such formulas, identifying many known formulas for mathematical constants, and discover previously unknown formulas for pi, ln(2), Gauss', and Lemniscate's constants. The uncovered patterns enable a direct generalization of individual formulas to infinite families, unveiling rich mathematical structures. This success paves the way towards a generative model that creates formulas fulfilling specified mathematical properties, accelerating the rate of discovery of useful formulas.

This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems. Unlike prior studies that focus solely on answer correctness, we rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models - including Mixtral, Llama, Gemini, GPT-4o, and OpenAI's o1 variants - we find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic, sometimes producing correct answers through flawed logic. Common failure modes include unwarranted assumptions, over-reliance on numerical patterns, and difficulty translating physical intuition into mathematical steps. Manual analysis reveals that models struggle with problems requiring multi-step deduction or real-world knowledge, despite possessing broad mathematical knowledge. Our results underscore the importance of evaluating reasoning processes, not just answers, and caution against overestimating LLMs' problem-solving proficiency. The study highlights persistent gaps in LLMs' generalization abilities, emphasizing the need for targeted improvements in structured reasoning and constraint handling.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capability in solving mathematical problems. However, existing approaches primarily focus on improving the quality of correct training data, e.g., distilling high-quality correct solutions from advanced models, neglecting the value contained in error data, potentially hindering the model's reflective ability. Though some studies attempt to leverage error data, they often involve complex mechanisms, such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to explore error nodes. In this work, we propose to enhance LLMs' reasoning ability by Learning from Errors for Mathematical Advancement (LEMMA). LEMMA constructs data consisting of an incorrect solution with an erroneous step and a reflection connection to a correct solution for fine-tuning. Specifically, we systematically analyze the model-generated error types and introduce an error-type grounded mistake augmentation method to collect diverse and representative errors. Correct solutions are either from fixing the errors or generating a fresh start. Through a model-aware smooth reflection connection, the erroneous solution is transferred to the correct one. By fine-tuning on the constructed dataset, the model is able to self-correct errors autonomously within the generation process without relying on external critique models. Experimental results demonstrate that LEMMA achieves significant performance improvements over other strong baselines.

Utility functions or their equivalents (value functions, objective functions, loss functions, reward functions, preference orderings) are a central tool in most current machine learning systems. These mechanisms for defining goals and guiding optimization run into practical and conceptual difficulty when there are independent, multi-dimensional objectives that need to be pursued simultaneously and cannot be reduced to each other. Ethicists have proved several impossibility theorems that stem from this origin; those results appear to show that there is no way of formally specifying what it means for an outcome to be good for a population without violating strong human ethical intuitions (in such cases, the objective function is a social welfare function). We argue that this is a practical problem for any machine learning system (such as medical decision support systems or autonomous weapons) or rigidly rule-based bureaucracy that will make high stakes decisions about human lives: such systems should not use objective functions in the strict mathematical sense. We explore the alternative of using uncertain objectives, represented for instance as partially ordered preferences, or as probability distributions over total orders. We show that previously known impossibility theorems can be transformed into uncertainty theorems in both of those settings, and prove lower bounds on how much uncertainty is implied by the impossibility results. We close by proposing two conjectures about the relationship between uncertainty in objectives and severe unintended consequences from AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on mathematical problems when prompted with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), yet it remains unclear whether this success stems from search, rote procedures, or rule-consistent reasoning. To address this, we propose modeling CoT as a certain rule-based stochastic process over directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where nodes represent intermediate derivation states and edges encode rule applications. Within this framework, we introduce logical closeness, a metric that quantifies how well a model's CoT trajectory (i.e., the LLM's final output) adheres to the DAG structure, providing evaluation beyond classical PASS@k metrics. Building on this, we introduce the DAG-MATH CoT format and construct a benchmark that guides LLMs to generate CoT trajectories in this format, thereby enabling the evaluation of their reasoning ability under our framework. Across standard mathematical reasoning datasets, our analysis uncovers statistically significant differences in reasoning fidelity among representative LLM families-even when PASS@k is comparable-highlighting gaps between final-answer accuracy and rule-consistent derivation. Our framework provides a balance between free-form CoT and formal proofs systems, offering actionable diagnostics for LLMs reasoning evaluation. Our benchmark and code are available at: https://github.com/YuanheZ/DAG-MATH-Formatted-CoT.

Counterfactual explanations are attracting significant attention due to the flourishing applications of machine learning models in consequential domains. A counterfactual plan consists of multiple possibilities to modify a given instance so that the model's prediction will be altered. As the predictive model can be updated subject to the future arrival of new data, a counterfactual plan may become ineffective or infeasible with respect to the future values of the model parameters. In this work, we study the counterfactual plans under model uncertainty, in which the distribution of the model parameters is partially prescribed using only the first- and second-moment information. First, we propose an uncertainty quantification tool to compute the lower and upper bounds of the probability of validity for any given counterfactual plan. We then provide corrective methods to adjust the counterfactual plan to improve the validity measure. The numerical experiments validate our bounds and demonstrate that our correction increases the robustness of the counterfactual plans in different real-world datasets.

Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to compositional rules - rules consisting of multiple elements which form a complex logical expression. Reasoning about compositional rules is challenging because it requires multiple reasoning steps, and attending to the logical relationships between elements. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition (solving elements as independent threads of logic), and recomposition (recombining these sub-answers to resolve the underlying logical expression). This method was inspired by the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, a sequential reasoning approach used by lawyers. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark and demonstrate it consistently outperforms other prompting methods, including chain of thought and self-ask, using open-source and commercial language models.

A recent paper (van Rooij et al. 2024) claims to have proved that achieving human-like intelligence using learning from data is intractable in a complexity-theoretic sense. We identify that the proof relies on an unjustified assumption about the distribution of (input, output) pairs to the system. We briefly discuss that assumption in the context of two fundamental barriers to repairing the proof: the need to precisely define ``human-like," and the need to account for the fact that a particular machine learning system will have particular inductive biases that are key to the analysis.

Formal mathematical reasoning remains a critical challenge for artificial intelligence, hindered by limitations of existing benchmarks in scope and scale. To address this, we present FormalMATH, a large-scale Lean4 benchmark comprising 5,560 formally verified problems spanning from high-school Olympiad challenges to undergraduate-level theorems across diverse domains (e.g., algebra, applied mathematics, calculus, number theory, and discrete mathematics). To mitigate the inefficiency of manual formalization, we introduce a novel human-in-the-loop autoformalization pipeline that integrates: (1) specialized large language models (LLMs) for statement autoformalization, (2) multi-LLM semantic verification, and (3) negation-based disproof filtering strategies using off-the-shelf LLM-based provers. This approach reduces expert annotation costs by retaining 72.09% of statements before manual verification while ensuring fidelity to the original natural-language problems. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM-based theorem provers reveals significant limitations: even the strongest models achieve only 16.46% success rate under practical sampling budgets, exhibiting pronounced domain bias (e.g., excelling in algebra but failing in calculus) and over-reliance on simplified automation tactics. Notably, we identify a counterintuitive inverse relationship between natural-language solution guidance and proof success in chain-of-thought reasoning scenarios, suggesting that human-written informal reasoning introduces noise rather than clarity in the formal reasoning settings. We believe that FormalMATH provides a robust benchmark for benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning.

The scholarly publishing ecosystem faces a dual crisis of unmanageable submission volumes and unregulated AI, creating an urgent need for new governance models to safeguard scientific integrity. The traditional human-only peer review regime lacks a scalable, objective benchmark, making editorial processes opaque and difficult to audit. Here we investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports. Analyzing 352 peer-review simulation reports, we identify consistent system state indicators that demonstrate its reliability. First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome (>50%) across all disciplines, while 'Reject' rates dynamically adapt to field-specific norms, rising to 45% in Health Sciences. Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate that remains invariant across diverse review tasks and scientific domains. These findings demonstrate a system that is predictably rule-bound, mitigating the stochasticity of generative AI. For the scientific community, this provides a transparent tool to ensure fairness; for publishing strategists, it offers a scalable instrument for auditing workflows, managing integrity risks, and implementing evidence-based governance. The framework repositions AI as an essential component of institutional accountability, providing the critical infrastructure to maintain trust in scholarly communication.

Shojaee et al. (2025) report that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit "accuracy collapse" on planning puzzles beyond certain complexity thresholds. We demonstrate that their findings primarily reflect experimental design limitations rather than fundamental reasoning failures. Our analysis reveals three critical issues: (1) Tower of Hanoi experiments systematically exceed model output token limits at reported failure points, with models explicitly acknowledging these constraints in their outputs; (2) The authors' automated evaluation framework fails to distinguish between reasoning failures and practical constraints, leading to misclassification of model capabilities; (3) Most concerningly, their River Crossing benchmarks include mathematically impossible instances for N > 5 due to insufficient boat capacity, yet models are scored as failures for not solving these unsolvable problems. When we control for these experimental artifacts, by requesting generating functions instead of exhaustive move lists, preliminary experiments across multiple models indicate high accuracy on Tower of Hanoi instances previously reported as complete failures. These findings highlight the importance of careful experimental design when evaluating AI reasoning capabilities.

We show that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can elicit strong mathematical reasoning in certain models even with spurious rewards that have little, no, or even negative correlation with the correct answer. For example, RLVR improves MATH-500 performance for Qwen2.5-Math-7B in absolute points by 21.4% (random reward), 13.8% (format reward), 24.1% (incorrect label), 26.0% (1-shot RL), and 27.1% (majority voting) -- nearly matching the 29.1% gained with ground truth rewards. However, the spurious rewards that work for Qwen often fail to yield gains with other model families like Llama3 or OLMo2. In particular, we find code reasoning -- thinking in code without actual code execution -- to be a distinctive Qwen2.5-Math behavior that becomes significantly more frequent after RLVR, from 65% to over 90%, even with spurious rewards. Overall, we hypothesize that, given the lack of useful reward signal, RLVR must somehow be surfacing useful reasoning representations learned during pretraining, although the exact mechanism remains a topic for future work. We suggest that future RLVR research should possibly be validated on diverse models rather than a single de facto choice, as we show that it is easy to get significant performance gains on Qwen models even with completely spurious reward signals.

Conducting contamination-free evaluation of mathematical capabilities can be difficult for two reasons: models may memorize a test set once it is made public, and current mathematical benchmarks are prone to overfitting due to having limited diversity of symbols and rules, coupled with closed-ended answers. This paper proposes a method to leverage these shortcomings as useful features to a construct dynamic, counterfactual benchmark, which can be used to both reveal overfitting and measure true reasoning. We demonstrate this via MatheMagic, which generates math test instances with the interpretations of numbers and operators altered, yet has automatically verifiable answers. Test instances are randomly seeded and constructed at test time to evaluate a model's induction or deduction capability, offering stability, extensibility, comparability, and robustness to overfitting. Our experiments find that models solve deduction more easily than induction, but they revert to standard math. Further analysis reveals that math-adapted models fail to exhibit a general "skill" of reasoning, and fine-tuning on induction tasks generalizes poorly.

Language models have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving reasoning tasks; however, even the strongest models still occasionally make reasoning mistakes. Recently, there has been active research aimed at improving reasoning accuracy, particularly by using pretrained language models to "self-correct" their mistakes via multi-round prompting. In this paper, we follow this line of work but focus on understanding the usefulness of incorporating "error-correction" data directly into the pretraining stage. This data consists of erroneous solution steps immediately followed by their corrections. Using a synthetic math dataset, we show promising results: this type of pretrain data can help language models achieve higher reasoning accuracy directly (i.e., through simple auto-regression, without multi-round prompting) compared to pretraining on the same amount of error-free data. We also delve into many details, such as (1) how this approach differs from beam search, (2) how such data can be prepared, (3) whether masking is needed on the erroneous tokens, (4) the amount of error required, (5) whether such data can be deferred to the fine-tuning stage, and many others.

With the advent of DeepSeek-R1, a new wave of reinforcement learning (RL) methods has emerged that seem to unlock stronger mathematical reasoning. However, a closer look at the open-source ecosystem reveals a critical limitation: with sufficiently many draws (e.g., pass@1024), many existing base models already solve nearly all questions on widely used math benchmarks such as MATH-500 and AIME 2024. This suggests that the RL fine-tuning methods prevalent in the LLM reasoning literature largely sharpen existing solution modes rather than discovering entirely new ones. Such sharpening stands in contrast to the broader promise of RL: to foster exploration and to acquire new skills. To move beyond this plateau, we introduce MATH-Beyond (MATH-B), a benchmark deliberately constructed to defeat common open-source models of up to 8B parameters even under large sampling budgets. Improving performance on our benchmark via RL requires methods that learn to reason in ways that go beyond base model capabilities in repeated sampling. Since the problems are drawn from subsets of DAPO-Math-17K and DeepScaleR datasets, they remain topically equivalent to standard high-school math. Validating our premise, RL fine-tuned models such as Nemotron-Research-Reasoning-Qwen-1.5B and DeepScaleR-1.5B-Preview perform poorly on MATH-B at pass@1024, showing how existing approaches fall short on tackling harder instances. We hope MATH-B will catalyze exploration-driven RL approaches that elicit deeper reasoning capabilities. We release MATH-B at https://huggingface.co/datasets/brendel-group/MATH-Beyond.

Science progresses by iteratively advancing and correcting humanity's understanding of the world. In machine learning (ML) research, rapid advancements have led to an explosion of publications, but have also led to misleading, incorrect, flawed or perhaps even fraudulent studies being accepted and sometimes highlighted at ML conferences due to the fallibility of peer review. While such mistakes are understandable, ML conferences do not offer robust processes to help the field systematically correct when such errors are made. This position paper argues that ML conferences should establish a dedicated "Refutations and Critiques" (R&C) Track. This R&C Track would provide a high-profile, reputable platform to support vital research that critically challenges prior research, thereby fostering a dynamic self-correcting research ecosystem. We discuss key considerations including track design, review principles, potential pitfalls, and provide an illustrative example submission concerning a recent ICLR 2025 Oral. We conclude that ML conferences should create official, reputable mechanisms to help ML research self-correct.

This paper presents MathBode, a dynamic diagnostic for mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Instead of one-shot accuracy, MathBode treats each parametric problem as a system: we drive a single parameter sinusoidally and fit first-harmonic responses of model outputs and exact solutions. This yields interpretable, frequency-resolved metrics -- gain (amplitude tracking) and phase (lag) -- that form Bode-style fingerprints. Across five closed-form families (linear solve, ratio/saturation, compound interest, 2x2 linear systems, similar triangles), the diagnostic surfaces systematic low-pass behavior and growing phase lag that accuracy alone obscures. We compare several models against a symbolic baseline that calibrates the instrument (G approx 1, phi approx 0). Results separate frontier from mid-tier models on dynamics, providing a compact, reproducible protocol that complements standard benchmarks with actionable measurements of reasoning fidelity and consistency. We open-source the dataset and code to enable further research and adoption.

Machine learning models always make a prediction, even when it is likely to be inaccurate. This behavior should be avoided in many decision support applications, where mistakes can have severe consequences. Albeit already studied in 1970, machine learning with rejection recently gained interest. This machine learning subfield enables machine learning models to abstain from making a prediction when likely to make a mistake. This survey aims to provide an overview on machine learning with rejection. We introduce the conditions leading to two types of rejection, ambiguity and novelty rejection, which we carefully formalize. Moreover, we review and categorize strategies to evaluate a model's predictive and rejective quality. Additionally, we define the existing architectures for models with rejection and describe the standard techniques for learning such models. Finally, we provide examples of relevant application domains and show how machine learning with rejection relates to other machine learning research areas.

Human cognition exhibits systematic compositionality, the algebraic ability to generate infinite novel combinations from finite learned components, which is the key to understanding and reasoning about complex logic. In this work, we investigate the compositionality of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, we construct a new dataset MathTrap by introducing carefully designed logical traps into the problem descriptions of MATH and GSM8K. Since problems with logical flaws are quite rare in the real world, these represent "unseen" cases to LLMs. Solving these requires the models to systematically compose (1) the mathematical knowledge involved in the original problems with (2) knowledge related to the introduced traps. Our experiments show that while LLMs possess both components of requisite knowledge, they do not spontaneously combine them to handle these novel cases. We explore several methods to mitigate this deficiency, such as natural language prompts, few-shot demonstrations, and fine-tuning. Additionally, we test the recently released OpenAI o1 model and find that human-like `slow thinking' helps improve the compositionality of LLMs. Overall, systematic compositionality remains an open challenge for large language models.

Recent advancements in language models have led to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning across various benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks rely on automatic evaluation methods that only compare final answers using heuristics, without verifying the underlying reasoning steps. This limitation results in false positive solutions, where models may produce correct final answers but with flawed deduction paths. In this paper, we systematically examine the prevalence of false positive solutions in mathematical problem solving for language models. We analyze the characteristics and extent of this issue across different open-source models, datasets of varying difficulty levels, and decoding strategies. Specifically, we explore how false positives influence the inference time scaling behavior of language models. Our experimental results reveal that: (1) false positive solutions persist across different models, datasets, and decoding methods, (2) sampling-based inference time scaling methods do not alleviate the problem, and (3) the pass@N evaluation metric is more susceptible to false positives, suggesting a significantly lower scaling ceiling than what automatic evaluations indicate. Additionally, we analyze specific instances of false positives and discuss potential limitations in self-improvement techniques and synthetic data generation under such conditions. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Wloner0809/False-Positives-in-Math.

State-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs have progressed from struggling on proof-based Olympiad problems to solving most of the IMO 2025 problems, with leading systems reportedly handling 5 of 6 problems. Given this progress, we assess how well these models can grade proofs: detecting errors, judging their severity, and assigning fair scores beyond binary correctness. We study proof-analysis capabilities using a corpus of 90 Gemini 2.5 Pro-generated solutions that we grade on a 1-4 scale with detailed error annotations, and on MathArena solution sets for IMO/USAMO 2025 scored on a 0-7 scale. Our analysis shows that models can reliably flag incorrect (including subtly incorrect) solutions but exhibit calibration gaps in how partial credit is assigned. To address this, we introduce agentic workflows that extract and analyze reference solutions and automatically derive problem-specific rubrics for a multi-step grading process. We instantiate and compare different design choices for the grading workflows, and evaluate their trade-offs. Across our annotated corpus and MathArena, our proposed workflows achieve higher agreement with human grades and more consistent handling of partial credit across metrics. We release all code, data, and prompts/logs to facilitate future research.

Inequality proving, crucial across diverse scientific and mathematical fields, tests advanced reasoning skills such as discovering tight bounds and strategic theorem application. This makes it a distinct, demanding frontier for large language models (LLMs), offering insights beyond general mathematical problem-solving. Progress in this area is hampered by existing datasets that are often scarce, synthetic, or rigidly formal. We address this by proposing an informal yet verifiable task formulation, recasting inequality proving into two automatically checkable subtasks: bound estimation and relation prediction. Building on this, we release IneqMath, an expert-curated dataset of Olympiad-level inequalities, including a test set and training corpus enriched with step-wise solutions and theorem annotations. We also develop a novel LLM-as-judge evaluation framework, combining a final-answer judge with four step-wise judges designed to detect common reasoning flaws. A systematic evaluation of 29 leading LLMs on IneqMath reveals a surprising reality: even top models like o1 achieve less than 10% overall accuracy under step-wise scrutiny; this is a drop of up to 65.5% from their accuracy considering only final answer equivalence. This discrepancy exposes fragile deductive chains and a critical gap for current LLMs between merely finding an answer and constructing a rigorous proof. Scaling model size and increasing test-time computation yield limited gains in overall proof correctness. Instead, our findings highlight promising research directions such as theorem-guided reasoning and self-refinement. Code and data are available at https://ineqmath.github.io/.

The success of Deepseek-R1 has drawn the LLM community's attention to reinforcement learning (RL) methods like GRPO. However, such rule-based 0/1 outcome reward methods lack the capability to regulate the intermediate reasoning processes during chain-of-thought (CoT) generation, leading to severe overthinking phenomena. In response, recent studies have designed reward functions to reinforce models' behaviors in producing shorter yet correct completions. Nevertheless, we observe that these length-penalty reward functions exacerbate RL training instability: as the completion length decreases, model accuracy abruptly collapses, often occurring early in training. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective solution GRPO-lambda, an efficient and stabilized variant of GRPO, which dynamically adjusts the reward strategy by monitoring the correctness ratio among completions within each query-sampled group. A low correctness ratio indicates the need to avoid length penalty that compromises CoT quality, triggering a switch to length-agnostic 0/1 rewards that prioritize reasoning capability. A high ratio maintains length penalties to boost efficiency. Experimental results show that our approach avoids training instability caused by length penalty while maintaining the optimal accuracy-efficiency trade-off. On the GSM8K, GPQA, MATH-500, AMC 2023, and AIME 2024 benchmarks, it improves average accuracy by 1.48% while reducing CoT sequence length by 47.3%.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable reward (RLVR) on preference data has become the mainstream approach for training Generative Reward Models (GRMs). Typically in pairwise rewarding tasks, GRMs generate reasoning chains ending with critiques and preference labels, and RLVR then relies on the correctness of the preference labels as the training reward. However, in this paper, we demonstrate that such binary classification tasks make GRMs susceptible to guessing correct outcomes without sound critiques. Consequently, these spurious successes introduce substantial noise into the reward signal, thereby impairing the effectiveness of reinforcement learning. To address this issue, we propose Reward Modeling from Natural Language Human Feedback (RM-NLHF), which leverages natural language feedback to obtain process reward signals, thereby mitigating the problem of limited solution space inherent in binary tasks. Specifically, we compute the similarity between GRM-generated and human critiques as the training reward, which provides more accurate reward signals than outcome-only supervision. Additionally, considering that human critiques are difficult to scale up, we introduce Meta Reward Model (MetaRM) which learns to predict process reward from datasets with human critiques and then generalizes to data without human critiques. Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art GRMs trained with outcome-only reward, confirming the superiority of integrating natural language over binary human feedback as supervision.

Mathematical reasoning---a core ability within human intelligence---presents some unique challenges as a domain: we do not come to understand and solve mathematical problems primarily on the back of experience and evidence, but on the basis of inferring, learning, and exploiting laws, axioms, and symbol manipulation rules. In this paper, we present a new challenge for the evaluation (and eventually the design) of neural architectures and similar system, developing a task suite of mathematics problems involving sequential questions and answers in a free-form textual input/output format. The structured nature of the mathematics domain, covering arithmetic, algebra, probability and calculus, enables the construction of training and test splits designed to clearly illuminate the capabilities and failure-modes of different architectures, as well as evaluate their ability to compose and relate knowledge and learned processes. Having described the data generation process and its potential future expansions, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of models from two broad classes of the most powerful sequence-to-sequence architectures and find notable differences in their ability to resolve mathematical problems and generalize their knowledge.

In a legal system, judgment consistency is regarded as one of the most important manifestations of fairness. However, due to the complexity of factual elements that impact sentencing in real-world scenarios, few works have been done on quantitatively measuring judgment consistency towards real-world data. In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo), which aims to evaluate inconsistency between data groups divided by specific features (e.g., gender, region, race). We propose to simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. Experimental results on the synthetic data verify the effectiveness of LInCo. We further employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency; (2) The level of regional inconsistency varies little across different time periods; (3) In general, judicial inconsistency is negatively correlated with the severity of the criminal charges. Besides, we use LInCo to evaluate the performance of several de-bias methods, such as adversarial learning, and find that these mechanisms can effectively help LJP models to avoid suffering from data bias.

In this paper, we introduce a systematic framework beyond conventional method to assess LLMs' mathematical-reasoning robustness by stress-testing them on advanced math problems that are mathematically equivalent but with linguistic and parametric variation. These transformations allow us to measure the sensitivity of LLMs to non-mathematical perturbations, thereby enabling a more accurate evaluation of their mathematical reasoning capabilities. Using this new evaluation methodology, we created PutnamGAP, a new benchmark dataset with multiple mathematically-equivalent variations of competition-level math problems. With the new dataset, we evaluate multiple families of representative LLMs and examine their robustness. Across 18 commercial and open-source models we observe sharp performance degradation on the variants. OpenAI's flagship reasoning model, O3, scores 51.5% on the originals but drops by 4.7 percentage points on surface-renaming variants, and by 12.9 percentage points on parametric variants, while smaller models fare far worse. Overall, the results show that the proposed new evaluation methodology is effective for deepening our understanding of the robustness of LLMs and generating new insights for further improving their mathematical reasoning capabilities.

Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has proven effective at improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, standard RL assigns credit only at the level of the final answer, penalizing entire reasoning traces when the outcome is incorrect and uniformly reinforcing all steps when it is correct. As a result, correct intermediate steps may be discouraged in failed traces, while spurious steps may be reinforced in successful ones. We refer to this failure mode as the problem of credit assignment. While a natural remedy is to train a process reward model, accurately optimizing such models to identify corrective reasoning steps remains challenging. We introduce Intervention Training (InT), a training paradigm in which the model performs fine-grained credit assignment on its own reasoning traces by proposing short, targeted corrections that steer trajectories toward higher reward. Using reference solutions commonly available in mathematical reasoning datasets and exploiting the fact that verifying a model-generated solution is easier than generating a correct one from scratch, the model identifies the first error in its reasoning and proposes a single-step intervention to redirect the trajectory toward the correct solution. We then apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to the on-policy rollout up to the point of error concatenated with the intervention, localizing error to the specific step that caused failure. We show that the resulting model serves as a far better initialization for RL training. After running InT and subsequent fine-tuning with RL, we improve accuracy by nearly 14% over a 4B-parameter base model on IMO-AnswerBench, outperforming larger open-source models such as gpt-oss-20b.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains. Math Word Problems (MWPs) serve as a crucial benchmark for evaluating LLMs' reasoning abilities. While most research primarily focuses on improving accuracy, it often neglects understanding and addressing the underlying patterns of errors. Current error classification methods rely on static and predefined categories, which limit their ability to capture the full spectrum of error patterns in mathematical reasoning. To enable systematic error analysis, we collect error samples from 15 different LLMs of varying sizes across four distinct MWP datasets using multiple sampling strategies. Based on this extensive collection, we introduce MWPES-300K, a comprehensive dataset containing 304,865 error samples that cover diverse error patterns and reasoning paths. To reduce human bias and enable fine-grained analysis of error patterns, we propose a novel framework for automated dynamic error classification in mathematical reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that dataset characteristics significantly shape error patterns, which evolve from basic to complex manifestations as model capabilities increase. With deeper insights into error patterns, we propose error-aware prompting that incorporates common error patterns as explicit guidance, leading to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited strong mathematical reasoning and computational prowess, tackling tasks ranging from basic arithmetic to advanced competition-level problems. However, frequently occurring subtle errors, such as miscalculations or incorrect substitutions, limit the models' full mathematical potential. Existing studies to improve mathematical ability typically involve distilling reasoning skills from stronger LLMs or applying preference learning to step-wise response pairs. Although these methods leverage samples of varying granularity to mitigate reasoning errors, they overlook the frequently occurring subtle errors. A major reason is that sampled preference pairs involve differences unrelated to the errors, which may distract the model from focusing on subtle errors. In this work, we propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE), which injects predefined subtle errors into partial tokens of correct solutions to construct hard pairs for error mitigation. In detail, RISE uses the model itself to edit a small number of tokens in the solution, injecting designed subtle errors. Then, pairs composed of self-edited solutions and their corresponding correct ones, along with pairs of correct and incorrect solutions obtained through sampling, are used together for subtle error-aware DPO training. Compared with other preference learning methods, RISE further refines the training objective to focus on predefined errors and their tokens, without requiring fine-grained sampling or preference annotation. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH.

The emergence of pre-trained AI systems with powerful capabilities across a diverse and ever-increasing set of complex domains has raised a critical challenge for AI safety as tasks can become too complicated for humans to judge directly. Irving et al. [2018] proposed a debate method in this direction with the goal of pitting the power of such AI models against each other until the problem of identifying (mis)-alignment is broken down into a manageable subtask. While the promise of this approach is clear, the original framework was based on the assumption that the honest strategy is able to simulate deterministic AI systems for an exponential number of steps, limiting its applicability. In this paper, we show how to address these challenges by designing a new set of debate protocols where the honest strategy can always succeed using a simulation of a polynomial number of steps, whilst being able to verify the alignment of stochastic AI systems, even when the dishonest strategy is allowed to use exponentially many simulation steps.

Example-based guidance is widely used to improve mathematical reasoning at inference time, yet its effectiveness is highly unstable across problems and models-even when the guidance is correct and problem-relevant. We show that this instability arises from a previously underexplored gap between strategy usage-whether a reasoning strategy appears in successful solutions-and strategy executability-whether the strategy remains effective when instantiated as guidance for a target model. Through a controlled analysis of paired human-written and model-generated solutions, we identify a systematic dissociation between usage and executability: human- and model-derived strategies differ in structured, domain-dependent ways, leading to complementary strengths and consistent source-dependent reversals under guidance. Building on this diagnosis, we propose Selective Strategy Retrieval (SSR), a test-time framework that explicitly models executability by selectively retrieving and combining strategies using empirical, multi-route, source-aware signals. Across multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SSR yields reliable and consistent improvements over direct solving, in-context learning, and single-source guidance, improving accuracy by up to +13 points on AIME25 and +5 points on Apex for compact reasoning models. Code and benchmark are publicly available at: https://github.com/lwd17/strategy-execute-pipeline.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at general mathematical reasoning but fail catastrophically on specialized technical mathematics. In wireless communications, where problems require precise manipulation of information-theoretic bounds, optimization constraints, and signal processing formulations, even state-of-the-art models struggle to achieve competent performance. We present WirelessMathLM, demonstrating that compact models (0.5B-7B parameters) can match or exceed much larger models through domain-specific reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Our key insight is that wireless mathematics problems possess a unique property--verifiable correctness--that enables effective reinforcement learning without human feedback. We construct WirelessMathBench-XL, a comprehensive benchmark of 4,027 problems from 970 papers. Using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with binary verification rewards, we train models directly from base checkpoints without supervised warm-start. Our 7B model achieves 39.5% accuracy on WirelessMathBench-XL, approaching GPT-4o (40.4%) while using about 100 times fewer parameters than DeepSeek-R1 (671B, 57.4%). Remarkably, GRPO training nearly doubles performance across all model scales (0.5B +11%, 3B +103%, 7B +81%), with positive transfer to general mathematics benchmarks--our models gain +8.4 points on average across MATH, Minerva-Math, OlympiadBench, AMC, and AIME without any training on these tasks.

The capacity for complex mathematical reasoning is a key benchmark for artificial intelligence. While reinforcement learning (RL) applied to LLMs shows promise, progress is significantly hindered by the lack of large-scale training data that is sufficiently challenging, possesses verifiable answer formats suitable for RL, and is free from contamination with evaluation benchmarks. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepMath-103K, a new, large-scale dataset comprising approximately 103K mathematical problems, specifically designed to train advanced reasoning models via RL. DeepMath-103K is curated through a rigorous pipeline involving source analysis, stringent decontamination against numerous benchmarks, and filtering for high difficulty (primarily Levels 5-9), significantly exceeding existing open resources in challenge. Each problem includes a verifiable final answer, enabling rule-based RL, and three distinct R1-generated solutions suitable for diverse training paradigms like supervised fine-tuning or distillation. Spanning a wide range of mathematical topics, DeepMath-103K promotes the development of generalizable reasoning. We demonstrate that models trained on DeepMath-103K achieve significant improvements on challenging mathematical benchmarks, validating its effectiveness. We release DeepMath-103K publicly to facilitate community progress in building more capable AI reasoning systems: https://github.com/zwhe99/DeepMath.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) have recently achieved impressive results on reasoning benchmarks. Yet, growing evidence shows that these models often generate longer but ineffective chains of thought (CoTs), calling into question whether benchmark gains reflect real reasoning improvements. We present new evidence of overthinking, where models disregard correct solutions even when explicitly provided, instead continuing to generate unnecessary reasoning steps that often lead to incorrect conclusions. Experiments on three state-of-the-art models using the AIME2024 math benchmark reveal critical limitations in these models ability to integrate corrective information, posing new challenges for achieving robust and interpretable reasoning.

Multivariate probabilistic time series forecasts are commonly evaluated via proper scoring rules, i.e., functions that are minimal in expectation for the ground-truth distribution. However, this property is not sufficient to guarantee good discrimination in the non-asymptotic regime. In this paper, we provide the first systematic finite-sample study of proper scoring rules for time-series forecasting evaluation. Through a power analysis, we identify the "region of reliability" of a scoring rule, i.e., the set of practical conditions where it can be relied on to identify forecasting errors. We carry out our analysis on a comprehensive synthetic benchmark, specifically designed to test several key discrepancies between ground-truth and forecast distributions, and we gauge the generalizability of our findings to real-world tasks with an application to an electricity production problem. Our results reveal critical shortcomings in the evaluation of multivariate probabilistic forecasts as commonly performed in the literature.

Enhancing the mathematical reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a pivotal challenge in advancing AI capabilities. While Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) are the dominant training paradigms, a systematic methodology for combining them to maximize both accuracy and efficiency remains largely unexplored. This paper introduces a practical and effective training recipe that strategically integrates extended SFT with RL from online inference (GRPO). We posit that these methods play complementary, not competing, roles: a prolonged SFT phase first pushes the model's accuracy to its limits, after which a GRPO phase dramatically improves token efficiency while preserving this peak performance. Our experiments reveal that extending SFT for as many as 10 epochs is crucial for performance breakthroughs, and that the primary role of GRPO in this framework is to optimize solution length. The efficacy of our recipe is rigorously validated through top-tier performance on challenging benchmarks, including a high rank among over 2,200 teams in the strictly leak-free AI Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO). This work provides the community with a battle-tested blueprint for developing state-of-the-art mathematical reasoners that are both exceptionally accurate and practically efficient. To ensure full reproducibility and empower future research, we will open-source our entire framework, including all code, model checkpoints, and training configurations at https://github.com/analokmaus/kaggle-aimo2-fast-math-r1.

Current evaluations of mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) are dominated by static benchmarks, either derived from competition-style problems or curated through costly expert effort, resulting in limited coverage of research-level mathematics and rapid performance saturation. We propose a fully automated, theorem-grounded pipeline for evaluating frontier mathematical reasoning, which directly transforms recent peer-reviewed mathematical literature into executable and verifiable reasoning tasks. The pipeline identifies constructive or quantitative results, instantiates them into parameterized problem templates, and generates deterministic solutions through execution-based verification, enabling scalable, reproducible, and continuously updatable evaluation without reliance on large-scale expert authoring. By design, this approach supports temporal extensibility, intrinsic correctness checking, and domain-specific customization across mathematical subfields. Applying this pipeline yields EternalMath, an evolving evaluation suite derived from contemporary research papers. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial performance gaps, indicating that mathematical reasoning at the research frontier remains far from saturated and underscoring the need for evaluation methodologies that evolve in step with human mathematical discovery.

A critical barrier to learning an accurate decision rule for outlier detection is the scarcity of outlier data. As such, practitioners often turn to the use of similar but imperfect outlier data from which they might transfer information to the target outlier detection task. Despite the recent empirical success of transfer learning approaches in outlier detection, a fundamental understanding of when and how knowledge can be transferred from a source to a target outlier detection task remains elusive. In this work, we adopt the traditional framework of Neyman-Pearson classification -- which formalizes supervised outlier detection -- with the added assumption that one has access to some related but imperfect outlier data. Our main results are as follows: We first determine the information-theoretic limits of the problem under a measure of discrepancy that extends some existing notions from traditional balanced classification; interestingly, unlike in balanced classification, seemingly very dissimilar sources can provide much information about a target, thus resulting in fast transfer. We then show that, in principle, these information-theoretic limits are achievable by adaptive procedures, i.e., procedures with no a priori information on the discrepancy between source and target outlier distributions.

A central question in artificial intelligence is the extent to which machine learning models comprehend mathematics. To address this, we propose a novel framework for measuring mathematical reasoning that moves beyond standard benchmarks to diagnose specific failure points. Our method first generates structured, step-by-step reasoning from gpt-3.5-turbo on the GSM8K dataset. We then use a more capable analyst model, gpt-4o-mini, to categorize errors and, crucially, perform an unsupervised clustering of every reasoning sentence to identify emergent "reasoning modes." This analysis reveals a cognitive profile with a stark, nonhuman-like brittleness: while the model achieves near-perfect accuracy on procedural modes like sequential calculation, its performance on modes requiring combinatorial reasoning with restrictions plummets. By identifying and quantifying the reliability of these distinct reasoning skills, our work provides a more granular method to evaluate mathematical comprehension and offers a precise roadmap for developing new capabilities and more reliable future applications.

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success on a broad range of tasks, math reasoning remains a challenging one. One of the approaches for improving math reasoning is self-correction, which designs self-improving loops to let the model correct its own mistakes. However, existing self-correction approaches treat corrections as standalone post-generation refinements, relying on extra prompt and system designs to elicit self-corrections, instead of performing real-time, spontaneous self-corrections in a single pass. To address this, we propose SPOC, a spontaneous self-correction approach that enables LLMs to generate interleaved solutions and verifications in a single inference pass, with generation dynamically terminated based on verification outcomes, thereby effectively scaling inference time compute. SPOC considers a multi-agent perspective by assigning dual roles -- solution proposer and verifier -- to the same model. We adopt a simple yet effective approach to generate synthetic data for fine-tuning, enabling the model to develop capabilities for self-verification and multi-agent collaboration. We further improve its solution proposal and verification accuracy through online reinforcement learning. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that SPOC significantly improves performance. Notably, SPOC boosts the accuracy of Llama-3.1-8B and 70B Instruct models, achieving gains of 8.8% and 11.6% on MATH500, 10.0% and 20.0% on AMC23, and 3.3% and 6.7% on AIME24, respectively.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of disguised procedural unfairness, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for pure procedural justice, we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing disguised procedural unfairness, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

Large language models have achieved remarkable success on final-answer mathematical problems, largely due to the ease of applying reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. However, the reasoning underlying these solutions is often flawed. Advancing to rigorous proof-based mathematics requires reliable proof verification capabilities. We begin by analyzing multiple evaluation setups and show that focusing on a single benchmark can lead to brittle or misleading conclusions. To address this, we evaluate both proof-based and final-answer reasoning to obtain a more reliable measure of model performance. We then scale two major generative verification methods (GenSelect and LLM-as-a-Judge) to millions of tokens and identify their combination as the most effective framework for solution verification and selection. We further show that the choice of prompt for LLM-as-a-Judge significantly affects the model's performance, but reinforcement learning can reduce this sensitivity. However, despite improving proof-level metrics, reinforcement learning does not enhance final-answer precision, indicating that current models often reward stylistic or procedural correctness rather than mathematical validity. Our results establish practical guidelines for designing and evaluating scalable proof-verification and selection systems.

Many challenging reasoning tasks require not just rapid, intuitive responses, but a more deliberate, multi-step approach. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) highlights an important shift from the "System 1" way of quick reactions to the "System 2" style of reflection-and-correction problem solving. However, current benchmarks heavily rely on the final-answer accuracy, leaving much of a model's intermediate reasoning steps unexamined. This fails to assess the model's ability to reflect and rectify mistakes within the reasoning process. To bridge this gap, we introduce FINEREASON, a logic-puzzle benchmark for fine-grained evaluation of LLMs' reasoning capabilities. Each puzzle can be decomposed into atomic steps, making it ideal for rigorous validation of intermediate correctness. Building on this, we introduce two tasks: state checking, and state transition, for a comprehensive evaluation of how models assess the current situation and plan the next move. To support broader research, we also provide a puzzle training set aimed at enhancing performance on general mathematical tasks. We show that models trained on our state checking and transition data demonstrate gains in math reasoning by up to 5.1% on GSM8K.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have substantially enhanced their mathematical reasoning abilities. However, these models still struggle with complex problems that require multiple reasoning steps, frequently leading to logical or numerical errors. While numerical mistakes can be largely addressed by integrating a code interpreter, identifying logical errors within intermediate steps is more challenging. Moreover, manually annotating these steps for training is not only expensive but also labor-intensive, requiring the expertise of professional annotators. In our study, we introduce an innovative approach that bypasses the need for process annotations (from human or GPTs) by utilizing the Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) framework. This technique automatically generates both the process supervision and the step-level evaluation signals. Our method iteratively trains the policy and value models, leveraging the capabilities of a well-pretrained LLM to progressively enhance its mathematical reasoning skills. Furthermore, we propose an efficient inference strategy-step-level beam search, where the value model is crafted to assist the policy model (i.e., LLM) in navigating more effective reasoning paths, rather than solely relying on prior probabilities. The experimental results on both in-domain and out-of-domain datasets demonstrate that even without GPT-4 or human-annotated process supervision, our AlphaMath framework achieves comparable or superior results to previous state-of-the-art methods.

We present a case study in semi-autonomous mathematics discovery, using Gemini to systematically evaluate 700 conjectures labeled 'Open' in Bloom's Erdős Problems database. We employ a hybrid methodology: AI-driven natural language verification to narrow the search space, followed by human expert evaluation to gauge correctness and novelty. We address 13 problems that were marked 'Open' in the database: 5 through seemingly novel autonomous solutions, and 8 through identification of previous solutions in the existing literature. Our findings suggest that the 'Open' status of the problems was through obscurity rather than difficulty. We also identify and discuss issues arising in applying AI to math conjectures at scale, highlighting the difficulty of literature identification and the risk of ''subconscious plagiarism'' by AI. We reflect on the takeaways from AI-assisted efforts on the Erdős Problems.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has played a central role in the recent surge of LLMs' math abilities by enabling self-improvement through binary verifier signals. In contrast, Supervised Learning (SL) is rarely considered for such verification-driven training, largely due to its heavy reliance on reference answers and inability to reflect on mistakes. In this work, we challenge the prevailing notion that self-improvement is exclusive to RL and propose Negative-aware Fine-Tuning (NFT) -- a supervised approach that enables LLMs to reflect on their failures and improve autonomously with no external teachers. In online training, instead of throwing away self-generated negative answers, NFT constructs an implicit negative policy to model them. This implicit policy is parameterized with the same positive LLM we target to optimize on positive data, enabling direct policy optimization on all LLMs' generations. We conduct experiments on 7B and 32B models in math reasoning tasks. Results consistently show that through the additional leverage of negative feedback, NFT significantly improves over SL baselines like Rejection sampling Fine-Tuning, matching or even surpassing leading RL algorithms like GRPO and DAPO. Furthermore, we demonstrate that NFT and GRPO are actually equivalent in strict-on-policy training, even though they originate from entirely different theoretical foundations. Our experiments and theoretical findings bridge the gap between SL and RL methods in binary-feedback learning systems.

We explore the emergence of intelligent behavior in artificial systems by investigating how the complexity of rule-based systems influences the capabilities of models trained to predict these rules. Our study focuses on elementary cellular automata (ECA), simple yet powerful one-dimensional systems that generate behaviors ranging from trivial to highly complex. By training distinct Large Language Models (LLMs) on different ECAs, we evaluated the relationship between the complexity of the rules' behavior and the intelligence exhibited by the LLMs, as reflected in their performance on downstream tasks. Our findings reveal that rules with higher complexity lead to models exhibiting greater intelligence, as demonstrated by their performance on reasoning and chess move prediction tasks. Both uniform and periodic systems, and often also highly chaotic systems, resulted in poorer downstream performance, highlighting a sweet spot of complexity conducive to intelligence. We conjecture that intelligence arises from the ability to predict complexity and that creating intelligence may require only exposure to complexity.

Large language models have achieved substantial progress in mathematical reasoning, yet their advancement is limited by the scarcity of high-quality, high-difficulty training data. Existing synthesis methods largely rely on transforming human-written templates, limiting both diversity and scalability. We propose MathSmith, a novel framework for synthesizing challenging mathematical problems to enhance LLM reasoning. Rather than modifying existing problems, MathSmith constructs new ones from scratch by randomly sampling concept-explanation pairs from PlanetMath, ensuring data independence and avoiding contamination. To increase difficulty, we design nine predefined strategies as soft constraints during rationales. We further adopts reinforcement learning to jointly optimize structural validity, reasoning complexity, and answer consistency. The length of the reasoning trace generated under autoregressive prompting is used to reflect cognitive complexity, encouraging the creation of more demanding problems aligned with long-chain-of-thought reasoning. Experiments across five benchmarks, categorized as easy & medium (GSM8K, MATH-500) and hard (AIME2024, AIME2025, OlympiadBench), show that MathSmith consistently outperforms existing baselines under both short and long CoT settings. Additionally, a weakness-focused variant generation module enables targeted improvement on specific concepts. Overall, MathSmith exhibits strong scalability, generalization, and transferability, highlighting the promise of high-difficulty synthetic data in advancing LLM reasoning capabilities.

Our work presents a novel angle for evaluating language models' (LMs) mathematical abilities, by investigating whether they can discern skills and concepts enabled by math content. We contribute two datasets: one consisting of 385 fine-grained descriptions of K-12 math skills and concepts, or standards, from Achieve the Core (ATC), and another of 9.9K problems labeled with these standards (MathFish). Working with experienced teachers, we find that LMs struggle to tag and verify standards linked to problems, and instead predict labels that are close to ground truth, but differ in subtle ways. We also show that LMs often generate problems that do not fully align with standards described in prompts. Finally, we categorize problems in GSM8k using math standards, allowing us to better understand why some problems are more difficult to solve for models than others.

Leveraging mathematical Large Language Models (LLMs) for proof generation is a fundamental topic in LLMs research. We argue that the ability of current LLMs to prove statements largely depends on whether they have encountered the relevant proof process during training. This reliance limits their deeper understanding of mathematical theorems and related concepts. Inspired by the pedagogical method of "proof by counterexamples" commonly used in human mathematics education, our work aims to enhance LLMs' ability to conduct mathematical reasoning and proof through counterexamples. Specifically, we manually create a high-quality, university-level mathematical benchmark, CounterMATH, which requires LLMs to prove mathematical statements by providing counterexamples, thereby assessing their grasp of mathematical concepts. Additionally, we develop a data engineering framework to automatically obtain training data for further model improvement. Extensive experiments and detailed analyses demonstrate that CounterMATH is challenging, indicating that LLMs, such as OpenAI o1, have insufficient counterexample-driven proof capabilities. Moreover, our exploration into model training reveals that strengthening LLMs' counterexample-driven conceptual reasoning abilities is crucial for improving their overall mathematical capabilities. We believe that our work offers new perspectives on the community of mathematical LLMs.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Mathematical reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) is often evaluated using benchmarks with limited numerical ranges, failing to reflect real-world problem-solving across diverse scales. Furthermore, most existing evaluation methods only compare model outputs to ground-truth answers, obscuring insights into reasoning processes. To address these limitations, we introduce GSM-Ranges, a dataset generator derived from GSM8K that systematically perturbs numerical values in math problems to assess model robustness across varying numerical scales. Additionally, we propose a novel grading methodology that distinguishes between logical and non-logical errors, offering a more precise evaluation of reasoning processes beyond computational accuracy. Our experiments with various models reveal a significant increase in logical error rates-up to 14 percentage points-as numerical complexity rises, demonstrating a general weakness in reasoning with out-of-distribution numerical values. Moreover, while models demonstrate high accuracy on standalone arithmetic tasks, their performance deteriorates substantially when computations are embedded within word problems. These findings provide a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' mathematical reasoning capabilities and inform future research directions for improving numerical generalization in language models.

We present the surprising finding that a language model's reasoning capabilities can be improved by training on synthetic datasets of chain-of-thought (CoT) traces from more capable models, even when all of those traces lead to an incorrect final answer. Our experiments show this approach can yield better performance on reasoning tasks than training on human-annotated datasets. We hypothesize that two key factors explain this phenomenon: first, the distribution of synthetic data is inherently closer to the language model's own distribution, making it more amenable to learning. Second, these `incorrect' traces are often only partially flawed and contain valid reasoning steps from which the model can learn. To further test the first hypothesis, we use a language model to paraphrase human-annotated traces -- shifting their distribution closer to the model's own distribution -- and show that this improves performance. For the second hypothesis, we introduce increasingly flawed CoT traces and study to what extent models are tolerant to these flaws. We demonstrate our findings across various reasoning domains like math, algorithmic reasoning and code generation using MATH, GSM8K, Countdown and MBPP datasets on various language models ranging from 1.5B to 9B across Qwen, Llama, and Gemma models. Our study shows that curating datasets that are closer to the model's distribution is a critical aspect to consider. We also show that a correct final answer is not always a reliable indicator of a faithful reasoning process.

Machine learning plays a role in many deployed decision systems, often in ways that are difficult or impossible to understand by human stakeholders. Explaining, in a human-understandable way, the relationship between the input and output of machine learning models is essential to the development of trustworthy machine learning based systems. A burgeoning body of research seeks to define the goals and methods of explainability in machine learning. In this paper, we seek to review and categorize research on counterfactual explanations, a specific class of explanation that provides a link between what could have happened had input to a model been changed in a particular way. Modern approaches to counterfactual explainability in machine learning draw connections to the established legal doctrine in many countries, making them appealing to fielded systems in high-impact areas such as finance and healthcare. Thus, we design a rubric with desirable properties of counterfactual explanation algorithms and comprehensively evaluate all currently proposed algorithms against that rubric. Our rubric provides easy comparison and comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and serves as an introduction to major research themes in this field. We also identify gaps and discuss promising research directions in the space of counterfactual explainability.

Can AI make progress on important, unsolved mathematical problems? Large language models are now capable of sophisticated mathematical and scientific reasoning, but whether they can perform novel research is still widely debated and underexplored. We introduce HorizonMath, a benchmark of over 100 predominantly unsolved problems spanning 8 domains in computational and applied mathematics, paired with an open-source evaluation framework for automated verification. Our benchmark targets a class of problems where discovery is hard, requiring meaningful mathematical insight, but verification is computationally efficient and simple. Because these solutions are unknown, HorizonMath is immune to data contamination, and most state-of-the-art models score near 0%. Existing research-level benchmarks instead rely on formal proof verification or manual review, both of which are expensive to scale. Using this platform, we find two problems for which GPT 5.4 Pro proposes solutions that improve on the best-known published results, representing potential novel contributions (pending expert review). We release HorizonMath as an open challenge and a growing community resource, where correct solutions to problems in the unsolved problem classes could constitute novel results in the mathematical literature.

When agents are acting together, they may need a simple mechanism to decide on joint actions. One possibility is to have the agents express their preferences in the form of a ballot and use a voting rule to decide the winning action(s). Unfortunately, agents may try to manipulate such an election by misreporting their preferences. Fortunately, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. To address this issue, I suggest studying empirically if computational complexity is in practice a barrier to manipulation. The basic tool used in my investigations is the identification of computational "phase transitions". Such an approach has been fruitful in identifying hard instances of propositional satisfiability and other NP-hard problems. I show that phase transition behaviour gives insight into the hardness of manipulating voting rules, increasing concern that computational complexity is indeed any sort of barrier. Finally, I look at the problem of computing manipulation of other, related problems like stable marriage and tournament problems.

The standard methodology of evaluating large language models (LLMs) based on static pairs of inputs and outputs is insufficient for developing assistants: this kind of assessments fails to take into account the essential interactive element in their deployment, and therefore limits how we understand language model capabilities. We introduce CheckMate, an adaptable prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate LLMs. We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models~(InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics, with a mixed cohort of participants from undergraduate students to professors of mathematics. We release the resulting interaction and rating dataset, MathConverse. By analysing MathConverse, we derive a preliminary taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness in LLM generations, amongst other findings. Further, we identify useful scenarios and existing issues of GPT-4 in mathematical reasoning through a series of case studies contributed by expert mathematicians. We conclude with actionable takeaways for ML practitioners and mathematicians: models which communicate uncertainty, respond well to user corrections, are more interpretable and concise may constitute better assistants; interactive evaluation is a promising way to continually navigate the capability of these models; humans should be aware of language models' algebraic fallibility, and for that reason discern where they should be used.

Verification is crucial for effective mathematical reasoning. We present a new temporal consistency method where verifiers iteratively refine their judgments based on the previous assessment. Unlike one-round verification or multi-model debate approaches, our method leverages consistency in a sequence of self-reflection actions to improve verification accuracy. Empirical evaluations across diverse mathematical process error identification benchmarks (Mathcheck, ProcessBench, and PRM800K) show consistent performance improvements over baseline methods. When applied to the recent DeepSeek R1 distilled models, our method demonstrates strong performance, enabling 7B/8B distilled models to outperform all 70B/72B models and GPT-4o on ProcessBench. Notably, the distilled 14B model with our method achieves performance comparable to Deepseek-R1. Our codes are available at https://github.com/jcguo123/Temporal-Consistency

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various tasks, but still struggle with complex mathematical reasoning. Existing research primarily focuses on dataset construction and method optimization, often overlooking two critical aspects: comprehensive knowledge-driven design and model-centric data space modeling. In this paper, we introduce We-Math 2.0, a unified system that integrates a structured mathematical knowledge system, model-centric data space modeling, and a reinforcement learning (RL)-based training paradigm to comprehensively enhance the mathematical reasoning abilities of MLLMs. The key contributions of We-Math 2.0 are fourfold: (1) MathBook Knowledge System: We construct a five-level hierarchical system encompassing 491 knowledge points and 1,819 fundamental principles. (2) MathBook-Standard & Pro: We develop MathBook-Standard, a dataset that ensures broad conceptual coverage and flexibility through dual expansion. Additionally, we define a three-dimensional difficulty space and generate 7 progressive variants per problem to build MathBook-Pro, a challenging dataset for robust training. (3) MathBook-RL: We propose a two-stage RL framework comprising: (i) Cold-Start Fine-tuning, which aligns the model with knowledge-oriented chain-of-thought reasoning; and (ii) Progressive Alignment RL, leveraging average-reward learning and dynamic data scheduling to achieve progressive alignment across difficulty levels. (4) MathBookEval: We introduce a comprehensive benchmark covering all 491 knowledge points with diverse reasoning step distributions. Experimental results show that MathBook-RL performs competitively with existing baselines on four widely-used benchmarks and achieves strong results on MathBookEval, suggesting promising generalization in mathematical reasoning.

Automated theorem proving (ATP) benchmarks largely consist of problems formalized in MathLib, so current ATP training and evaluation are heavily biased toward MathLib's definitional framework. However, frontier mathematics is often exploratory and prototype-heavy, relying on bespoke constructions that deviate from standard libraries. In this work, we evaluate the robustness of current ATP systems when applied to a novel definitional framework, specifically examining the performance gap between standard library problems and bespoke mathematical constructions. We introduce TaoBench, an undergraduate-level benchmark derived from Terence Tao's Analysis I, which formalizes analysis by constructing core mathematical concepts from scratch, without relying on standard Mathlib definitions, as well as by mixing from-scratch and MathLib constructions. For fair evaluation, we build an agentic pipeline that automatically extracts a compilable, self-contained local environment for each problem. To isolate the effect of definitional frameworks, we additionally translate every problem into a mathematically equivalent Mathlib formulation, yielding paired TaoBench-Mathlib statements for direct comparison. While state-of-the-art ATP models perform capably within the MathLib framework, performance drops by an average of roughly 26% on the definitionally equivalent Tao formulation. This indicates that the main bottleneck is limited generalization across definitional frameworks rather than task difficulty. TaoBench thus highlights a gap between benchmark performance and applicability, and provides a concrete foundation for developing and testing provers better aligned with research mathematics.

Self-correction is a novel method that can stimulate the potential reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). It involves detecting and correcting errors during the inference process when LLMs solve reasoning problems. However, recent works do not regard self-correction as a spontaneous and intrinsic capability of LLMs. Instead, such correction is achieved through post-hoc generation, external knowledge introduction, multi-model collaboration, and similar techniques. In this paper, we propose a series of mathematical LLMs called S^3c-Math, which are able to perform Spontaneous Step-level Self-correction for Mathematical reasoning. This capability helps LLMs to recognize whether their ongoing inference tends to contain errors and simultaneously correct these errors to produce a more reliable response. We proposed a method, which employs a step-level sampling approach to construct step-wise self-correction data for achieving such ability. Additionally, we implement a training strategy that uses above constructed data to equip LLMs with spontaneous step-level self-correction capacities. Our data and methods have been demonstrated to be effective across various foundation LLMs, consistently showing significant progress in evaluations on GSM8K, MATH, and other mathematical benchmarks. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to introduce the spontaneous step-level self-correction ability of LLMs in mathematical reasoning.

Mathematical reasoning, a core ability of human intelligence, presents unique challenges for machines in abstract thinking and logical reasoning. Recent large pre-trained language models such as GPT-3 have achieved remarkable progress on mathematical reasoning tasks written in text form, such as math word problems (MWP). However, it is unknown if the models can handle more complex problems that involve math reasoning over heterogeneous information, such as tabular data. To fill the gap, we present Tabular Math Word Problems (TabMWP), a new dataset containing 38,431 open-domain grade-level problems that require mathematical reasoning on both textual and tabular data. Each question in TabMWP is aligned with a tabular context, which is presented as an image, semi-structured text, and a structured table. There are two types of questions: free-text and multi-choice, and each problem is annotated with gold solutions to reveal the multi-step reasoning process. We evaluate different pre-trained models on TabMWP, including the GPT-3 model in a few-shot setting. As earlier studies suggest, since few-shot GPT-3 relies on the selection of in-context examples, its performance is unstable and can degrade to near chance. The unstable issue is more severe when handling complex problems like TabMWP. To mitigate this, we further propose a novel approach, PromptPG, which utilizes policy gradient to learn to select in-context examples from a small amount of training data and then constructs the corresponding prompt for the test example. Experimental results show that our method outperforms the best baseline by 5.31% on the accuracy metric and reduces the prediction variance significantly compared to random selection, which verifies its effectiveness in selecting in-context examples.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning. However, the current evaluation mostly focuses on carefully constructed benchmarks and neglects the consideration of real-world reasoning problems that present missing or contradictory conditions, known as ill-defined problems. To further study this problem, we develop a largescale benchmark called Problems with Missing and Contradictory conditions ( PMC) containing over 5,000 validated ill-defined mathematical problems. Our preliminary experiments through PMC reveal two challenges about existing methods: (1) traditional methods exhibit a trade-off between solving accuracy and rejection capabilities, and (2) formal methods struggle with modeling complex problems. To address these challenges, We develop Variable-Constraint Search (VCSEARCH), a trainingfree framework that leverages formal language to detect ill-defined problems, where a variableconstraint pair search strategy is incorporated to improve the modeling capability of formal language. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VCSEARCH improves the accuracy of identifying unsolvable problems by at least 12% across different LLMs, thus achieving stronger robust mathematical reasoning ability.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in complex reasoning tasks like mathematical problem-solving. However, existing research predominantly relies on reinforcement learning (RL) frameworks while overlooking supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods. This paper proposes a new two-stage training framework that enhances models' self-correction capabilities through self-generated long chain-of-thought (CoT) data. During the first stage, a multi-turn dialogue strategy guides the model to generate CoT data incorporating verification, backtracking, subgoal decomposition, and backward reasoning, with predefined rules filtering high-quality samples for supervised fine-tuning. The second stage employs a difficulty-aware rejection sampling mechanism to dynamically optimize data distribution, strengthening the model's ability to handle complex problems. The approach generates reasoning chains extended over 4 times longer while maintaining strong scalability, proving that SFT effectively activates models' intrinsic reasoning capabilities and provides a resource-efficient pathway for complex task optimization. Experimental results demonstrate performance improvements on mathematical benchmarks including GSM8K and MATH500, with the fine-tuned model achieving a substantial improvement on competition-level problems like AIME24. Code will be open-sourced.

Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. To further improve this capability, this work proposes Learning from Mistakes (LeMa), akin to human learning processes. Consider a human student who failed to solve a math problem, he will learn from what mistake he has made and how to correct it. Mimicking this error-driven learning process, LeMa fine-tunes LLMs on mistake-correction data pairs generated by GPT-4. Specifically, we first collect inaccurate reasoning paths from various LLMs and then employ GPT-4 as a "corrector" to (1) identify the mistake step, (2) explain the reason for the mistake, and (3) correct the mistake and generate the final answer. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of LeMa: across five backbone LLMs and two mathematical reasoning tasks, LeMa consistently improves the performance compared with fine-tuning on CoT data alone. Impressively, LeMa can also benefit specialized LLMs such as WizardMath and MetaMath, achieving 85.4% pass@1 accuracy on GSM8K and 27.1% on MATH. This surpasses the SOTA performance achieved by non-execution open-source models on these challenging tasks. Our code, data and models will be publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/CodeT.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising first-order logic (FOL) reasoning capabilities with applications in various areas. However, their effectiveness in complex mathematical reasoning involving multi-step FOL deductions is still under-researched. While LLMs perform competitively on established mathematical reasoning benchmarks, they struggle with multi-step FOL tasks, as demonstrated by Deepseek-Prover-V2-7B's low accuracy (4.2%) on our proposed theorem proving dataset. This issue arises from the limited exploration of diverse proof strategies and the potential for early reasoning mistakes to undermine entire proofs. To address these issues, we propose DREAM, a self-adaptive solution that enhances the Diversity and REAsonability of LLMs' generation strategies. DREAM incorporates an Axiom-Driven Strategy Diversification mechanism to promote varied strategic outcomes and a Sub-Proposition Error Feedback to help LLMs reflect on and correct their proofs. Our contributions include pioneering advancements in LLMs' mathematical reasoning through FOL theorem proving, introducing a novel inference stage solution that improves performance by 0.6% to 6.4%, and providing a curated dataset of 447 mathematical theorems in Lean 4 format for evaluation.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit diverse high-level reasoning patterns (e.g., direct solution, reflection-and-verification, and exploring multiple solutions), yet prevailing training recipes implicitly bias models toward a limited set of dominant patterns. Through a systematic analysis, we identify substantial accuracy variance across these patterns on mathematics and science benchmarks, revealing that a model's default reasoning pattern is often sub-optimal for a given problem. To address this, we introduce Group Pattern Selection Optimization (GPSO), a reinforcement learning framework that extends GRPO by incorporating multi-pattern rollouts, verifier-guided optimal pattern selection per problem, and attention masking during optimization to prevent the leakage of explicit pattern suffixes into the learned policy. By exploring a portfolio of diverse reasoning strategies and optimizing the policy on the most effective ones, GPSO enables the model to internalize the mapping from problem characteristics to optimal reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GPSO delivers consistent and substantial performance gains across various model backbones and benchmarks, effectively mitigating pattern sub-optimality and fostering more robust, adaptable reasoning. All data and codes are available at https://github.com/wanghanbinpanda/GPSO.

Knights and knaves problems represent a classic genre of logical puzzles where characters either tell the truth or lie. The objective is to logically deduce each character's identity based on their statements. The challenge arises from the truth-telling or lying behavior, which influences the logical implications of each statement. Solving these puzzles requires not only direct deductions from individual statements, but the ability to assess the truthfulness of statements by reasoning through various hypothetical scenarios. As such, knights and knaves puzzles serve as compelling examples of suppositional reasoning. In this paper, we introduce TruthQuest, a benchmark for suppositional reasoning based on the principles of knights and knaves puzzles. Our benchmark presents problems of varying complexity, considering both the number of characters and the types of logical statements involved. Evaluations on TruthQuest show that large language models like Llama 3 and Mixtral-8x7B exhibit significant difficulties solving these tasks. A detailed error analysis of the models' output reveals that lower-performing models exhibit a diverse range of reasoning errors, frequently failing to grasp the concept of truth and lies. In comparison, more proficient models primarily struggle with accurately inferring the logical implications of potentially false statements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently achieved remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning. To enable such capabilities, many existing works distill strong reasoning models into long chains of thought or design algorithms to construct high-quality math QA data for training. However, these efforts primarily focus on generating correct reasoning paths and answers, while largely overlooking the validity of the questions themselves. In this work, we propose Math Question Verification (MathQ-Verify), a novel five-stage pipeline designed to rigorously filter ill-posed or under-specified math problems. MathQ-Verify first performs format-level validation to remove redundant instructions and ensure that each question is syntactically well-formed. It then formalizes each question, decomposes it into atomic conditions, and verifies them against mathematical definitions. Next, it detects logical contradictions among these conditions, followed by a goal-oriented completeness check to ensure the question provides sufficient information for solving. To evaluate this task, we use existing benchmarks along with an additional dataset we construct, containing 2,147 math questions with diverse error types, each manually double-validated. Experiments show that MathQ-Verify achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, improving the F1 score by up to 25 percentage points over the direct verification baseline. It further attains approximately 90% precision and 63% recall through a lightweight model voting scheme. MathQ-Verify offers a scalable and accurate solution for curating reliable mathematical datasets, reducing label noise and avoiding unnecessary computation on invalid questions. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/scuuy/MathQ-Verify.

Mathematical reasoning serves as a cornerstone for assessing the fundamental cognitive capabilities of human intelligence. In recent times, there has been a notable surge in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) geared towards the automated resolution of mathematical problems. However, the landscape of mathematical problem types is vast and varied, with LLM-oriented techniques undergoing evaluation across diverse datasets and settings. This diversity makes it challenging to discern the true advancements and obstacles within this burgeoning field. This survey endeavors to address four pivotal dimensions: i) a comprehensive exploration of the various mathematical problems and their corresponding datasets that have been investigated; ii) an examination of the spectrum of LLM-oriented techniques that have been proposed for mathematical problem-solving; iii) an overview of factors and concerns affecting LLMs in solving math; and iv) an elucidation of the persisting challenges within this domain. To the best of our knowledge, this survey stands as one of the first extensive examinations of the landscape of LLMs in the realm of mathematics, providing a holistic perspective on the current state, accomplishments, and future challenges in this rapidly evolving field.

In AI alignment, extensive latitude must be granted to annotators, either human or algorithmic, to judge which model outputs are `better' or `safer.' We refer to this latitude as alignment discretion. Such discretion remains largely unexamined, posing two risks: (i) annotators may use their power of discretion arbitrarily, and (ii) models may fail to mimic this discretion. To study this phenomenon, we draw on legal concepts of discretion that structure how decision-making authority is conferred and exercised, particularly in cases where principles conflict or their application is unclear or irrelevant. Extended to AI alignment, discretion is required when alignment principles and rules are (inevitably) conflicting or indecisive. We present a set of metrics to systematically analyze when and how discretion in AI alignment is exercised, such that both risks (i) and (ii) can be observed. Moreover, we distinguish between human and algorithmic discretion and analyze the discrepancy between them. By measuring both human and algorithmic discretion over safety alignment datasets, we reveal layers of discretion in the alignment process that were previously unaccounted for. Furthermore, we demonstrate how algorithms trained on these datasets develop their own forms of discretion in interpreting and applying these principles, which challenges the purpose of having any principles at all. Our paper presents the first step towards formalizing this core gap in current alignment processes, and we call on the community to further scrutinize and control alignment discretion.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities--yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight--leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to Math Word Problems (MWPs) with transformative impacts, revolutionizing how these complex problems are approached and solved in various domains including educational settings. However, the evaluation of these models often prioritizes final accuracy, overlooking the crucial aspect of reasoning capabilities. This work addresses this gap by focusing on the ability of LLMs to detect and correct reasoning mistakes. We introduce a novel dataset MWP-MISTAKE, incorporating MWPs with both correct and incorrect reasoning steps generated through rule-based methods and smaller language models. Our comprehensive benchmarking reveals significant insights into the strengths and weaknesses of state-of-the-art models, such as GPT-4o, GPT-4, GPT-3.5Turbo, and others. We highlight GPT-$o's superior performance in mistake detection and rectification and the persistent challenges faced by smaller models. Additionally, we identify issues related to data contamination and memorization, impacting the reliability of LLMs in real-world applications. Our findings emphasize the importance of rigorous evaluation of reasoning processes and propose future directions to enhance the generalization and robustness of LLMs in mathematical problem-solving.

Math reasoning has become the poster child of progress in large language models (LLMs), with new models rapidly surpassing human-level performance on benchmarks like MATH and AIME. But as math leaderboards improve week by week, it is worth asking: do these gains reflect broader problem-solving ability or just narrow overfitting? To answer this question, we evaluate over 20 open-weight reasoning-tuned models across a broad suite of tasks, including math, scientific QA, agent planning, coding, and standard instruction-following. We surprisingly find that most models that succeed in math fail to transfer their gains to other domains. To rigorously study this phenomenon, we conduct controlled experiments on Qwen3-14B models using math-only data but different tuning methods. We find that reinforcement learning (RL)-tuned models generalize well across domains, while supervised fine-tuning (SFT)-tuned models often forget general capabilities. Latent-space representation and token-space distribution shift analyses reveal that SFT induces substantial representation and output drift, while RL preserves general-domain structure. Our results suggest a need to rethink standard post-training recipes, particularly the reliance on SFT-distilled data for advancing reasoning models.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant progress in performing complex tasks. While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has been effective in aligning LLMs with human preferences, it is susceptible to spurious correlations in reward modeling. Consequently, it often introduces biases-such as length bias, sycophancy, conceptual bias, and discrimination that hinder the model's ability to capture true causal relationships. To address this, we propose a novel causal reward modeling approach that integrates causal inference to mitigate these spurious correlations. Our method enforces counterfactual invariance, ensuring reward predictions remain consistent when irrelevant variables are altered. Through experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets, we show that our approach mitigates various types of spurious correlations effectively, resulting in more reliable and fair alignment of LLMs with human preferences. As a drop-in enhancement to the existing RLHF workflow, our causal reward modeling provides a practical way to improve the trustworthiness and fairness of LLM finetuning.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in long and complex reasoning tasks. However, they frequently exhibit a problematic reliance on familiar reasoning patterns, a phenomenon we term reasoning rigidity. Despite explicit instructions from users, these models often override clearly stated conditions and default to habitual reasoning trajectories, leading to incorrect conclusions. This behavior presents significant challenges, particularly in domains such as mathematics and logic puzzle, where precise adherence to specified constraints is critical. To systematically investigate reasoning rigidity, a behavior largely unexplored in prior work, we introduce a expert-curated diagnostic set, . Our dataset includes specially modified variants of existing mathematical benchmarks, namely AIME and MATH500, as well as well-known puzzles deliberately redesigned to require deviation from familiar reasoning strategies. Using this dataset, we identify recurring contamination patterns that occur when models default to ingrained reasoning. Specifically, we categorize this contamination into three distinctive modes: (i) Interpretation Overload, (ii) Input Distrust, and (iii) Partial Instruction Attention, each causing models to ignore or distort provided instructions. We publicly release our diagnostic set to facilitate future research on mitigating reasoning rigidity in language models.

Tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) has become a key approach for improving large reasoning models (LRMs) on complex problems. Prior work has mainly studied when to invoke tools, while overlooking how tools are applied. We identify two common patterns: a calculator pattern that uses code for direct computation, and an algorithmic pattern that encodes problems as programs. Misaligned choices often cause failures even when reasoning is sound. We propose a two-stage framework that first builds code competence from both patterns and then aligns pattern selection with teacher preferences. Across challenging math datasets, our pattern-aware method substantially improves both code usage and accuracy, for instance raising Code@1 on MATH500 from 64.0% to 70.5% and on AIME24 from 26.7% to 50.0%. These gains highlight the effectiveness of a pattern-aware approach for tool-integrated reasoning.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly tasked with high-stakes autonomous decision-making, the transparency of their reasoning processes has become a critical safety concern. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting allows agents to generate human-readable reasoning traces, it remains unclear whether these traces are faithful generative drivers of the model's output or merely post-hoc rationalizations. We introduce Project Ariadne, a novel XAI framework that utilizes Structural Causal Models (SCMs) and counterfactual logic to audit the causal integrity of agentic reasoning. Unlike existing interpretability methods that rely on surface-level textual similarity, Project Ariadne performs hard interventions (do-calculus) on intermediate reasoning nodes -- systematically inverting logic, negating premises, and reversing factual claims -- to measure the Causal Sensitivity (φ) of the terminal answer. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art models reveals a persistent Faithfulness Gap. We define and detect a widespread failure mode termed Causal Decoupling, where agents exhibit a violation density (ρ) of up to 0.77 in factual and scientific domains. In these instances, agents arrive at identical conclusions despite contradictory internal logic, proving that their reasoning traces function as "Reasoning Theater" while decision-making is governed by latent parametric priors. Our findings suggest that current agentic architectures are inherently prone to unfaithful explanation, and we propose the Ariadne Score as a new benchmark for aligning stated logic with model action.

We introduce MAmmoTH, a series of open-source large language models (LLMs) specifically tailored for general math problem-solving. The MAmmoTH models are trained on MathInstruct, our meticulously curated instruction tuning dataset. MathInstruct is compiled from 13 math datasets with intermediate rationales, six of which have rationales newly curated by us. It presents a unique hybrid of chain-of-thought (CoT) and program-of-thought (PoT) rationales, and also ensures extensive coverage of diverse fields in math. The hybrid of CoT and PoT not only unleashes the potential of tool use but also allows different thought processes for different math problems. As a result, the MAmmoTH series substantially outperform existing open-source models on nine mathematical reasoning datasets across all scales with an average accuracy gain between 13% and 29%. Remarkably, our MAmmoTH-7B model reaches 35% on MATH (a competition-level dataset), which exceeds the best open-source 7B model (WizardMath) by 25%, and the MAmmoTH-34B model achieves 46% accuracy on MATH, even surpassing GPT-4's CoT result. Our work underscores the importance of diverse problem coverage and the use of hybrid rationales in developing superior math generalist models.

In reasoning tasks, even a minor error can cascade into inaccurate results, leading to suboptimal performance of large language models in such domains. Earlier fine-tuning approaches sought to mitigate this by leveraging more precise supervisory signals from human labeling, larger models, or self-sampling, although at a high cost. Conversely, we develop a method that avoids external resources, relying instead on introducing perturbations to the input. Our training approach randomly masks certain tokens within the chain of thought, a technique we found to be particularly effective for reasoning tasks. When applied to fine-tuning with GSM8K, this method achieved a 5% improvement in accuracy over standard supervised fine-tuning with a few codes modified and no additional labeling effort. Furthermore, it is complementary to existing methods. When integrated with related data augmentation methods, it leads to an average improvement of 3% improvement in GSM8K accuracy and 1% improvement in MATH accuracy across five datasets of various quality and size, as well as two base models. We further investigate the mechanisms behind this improvement through case studies and quantitative analysis, suggesting that our approach may provide superior support for the model in capturing long-distance dependencies, especially those related to questions. This enhancement could deepen understanding of premises in questions and prior steps. Our code is available at Github.

The key limitation of the verification performance lies in the ability of error detection. With this intuition we designed several variants of pessimistic verification, which are simple workflows that could significantly improve the verification of open-ended math questions. In pessimistic verification we construct multiple parallel verifications for the same proof, and the proof is deemed incorrect if any one of them reports an error. This simple technique significantly improves the performance across many math verification benchmarks without incurring substantial computational resources. Its token efficiency even surpassed extended long-CoT in test-time scaling. Our case studies further indicate that the majority of false negatives in stronger models are actually caused by annotation errors in the original dataset, so our method's performance is in fact underestimated. Self-verification for mathematical problems can effectively improve the reliability and performance of language model outputs, and it also plays a critical role in enabling long-horizon mathematical tasks. We believe that research on pessimistic verification will help enhance the mathematical capabilities of language models across a wide range of tasks.

We resolve a $1000 Erdős prize problem, complete with formal verification generated by a large language model. In over a dozen papers, beginning in 1976 and spanning two decades, Paul Erdős repeatedly posed one of his "favourite" conjectures: every finite Sidon set can be extended to a finite perfect difference set. We establish that {1, 2, 4, 8, 13} is a counterexample to this conjecture. During the preparation of this paper, we discovered that although this problem was presumed to be open for half a century, Marshall Hall, Jr. published a different counterexample three decades before Erdős first posed the problem. With a healthy skepticism of this apparent oversight, and out of an abundance of caution, we used ChatGPT to vibe code a Lean proof of both Hall's and our counterexamples.

Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.

In this article, we introduce a neuro-symbolic approach that combines a low-level perception task performed by a neural network with a high-level reasoning task performed by a possibilistic rule-based system. The goal is to be able to derive for each input instance the degree of possibility that it belongs to a target (meta-)concept. This (meta-)concept is connected to intermediate concepts by a possibilistic rule-based system. The probability of each intermediate concept for the input instance is inferred using a neural network. The connection between the low-level perception task and the high-level reasoning task lies in the transformation of neural network outputs modeled by probability distributions (through softmax activation) into possibility distributions. The use of intermediate concepts is valuable for the explanation purpose: using the rule-based system, the classification of an input instance as an element of the (meta-)concept can be justified by the fact that intermediate concepts have been recognized. From the technical side, our contribution consists of the design of efficient methods for defining the matrix relation and the equation system associated with a possibilistic rule-based system. The corresponding matrix and equation are key data structures used to perform inferences from a possibilistic rule-based system and to learn the values of the rule parameters in such a system according to a training data sample. Furthermore, leveraging recent results on the handling of inconsistent systems of fuzzy relational equations, an approach for learning rule parameters according to multiple training data samples is presented. Experiments carried out on the MNIST addition problems and the MNIST Sudoku puzzles problems highlight the effectiveness of our approach compared with state-of-the-art neuro-symbolic ones.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at many natural language tasks, yet their reasoning reliability under structured perturbations of rule-based systems remains brittle. We present a controlled evaluation framework consisting of four stress tests: (1) rule deletion (redundant vs. essential), (2) contradictory evidence injection, (3) logic-preserving rewrites, and (4) multi-law equivalence stacking. While representative model families (BERT, Qwen2, and TinyLlama) achieve Acc = 1.0000 on base tasks, our framework reveals a critical failure mode termed Logic Inertia - a total breakdown with Acc = 0.0000 under contradictions, where deductive momentum overrides factual reality. To address this, we propose Conflict-Aware Fusion (Fusion-Conflict), a framework grounded in the Cognitive Structure Hypothesis, which posits that robust reasoning requires an explicit structural inductive bias. By imposing a dual-process architecture that separates premise verification from logical deduction, Conflict-Aware Fusion effectively mitigates logic inertia under the proposed evaluation framework, achieving 1.0000 accuracy on both base and contradictory stress tests. It also significantly enhances robustness to missing evidence. Our results demonstrate that, for reliable multi-step reasoning, structural verification discipline is as critical as training data scale, providing a potential blueprint for building robust, contradiction-aware AI systems this https://github.com/14H034160212/lemo . See the OpenAI/Evals pull request this https://github.com/openai/evals/pull/1622 .

High-quality mathematical reasoning supervision requires diverse reasoning styles, long-form traces, and effective tool integration, capabilities that existing datasets provide only in limited form. Leveraging the multi-mode generation ability of gpt-oss-120b, we introduce Nemotron-Math, a large-scale mathematical reasoning dataset containing 7.5M solution traces across high, medium, and low reasoning modes, each available both with and without Python tool-integrated reasoning (TIR). The dataset integrates 85K curated AoPS problems with 262K community-sourced StackExchange-Math problems, combining structured competition tasks with diverse real-world mathematical queries. We conduct controlled evaluations to assess the dataset quality. Nemotron-Math consistently outperforms the original OpenMathReasoning on matched AoPS problems. Incorporating StackExchange-Math substantially improves robustness and generalization, especially on HLE-Math, while preserving accuracy on math competition benchmarks. To support efficient long-context training, we develop a sequential bucketed strategy that accelerates 128K context-length fine-tuning by 2--3times without significant accuracy loss. Overall, Nemotron-Math enables state-of-the-art performance, including 100\% maj@16 accuracy on AIME 2024 and 2025 with Python TIR.