Inspired by the success of DeepSeek-R1, we explore the potential of rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) in large reasoning models. To analyze reasoning dynamics, we use synthetic logic puzzles as training data due to their controllable complexity and straightforward answer verification. We make some key technical contributions that lead to effective and stable RL training: a system prompt that emphasizes the thinking and answering process, a stringent format reward function that penalizes outputs for taking shortcuts, and a straightforward training recipe that achieves stable convergence. Our 7B model develops advanced reasoning skills-such as reflection, verification, and summarization-that are absent from the logic corpus. Remarkably, after training on just 5K logic problems, it demonstrates generalization abilities to the challenging math benchmarks AIME and AMC.
The pace of evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates new approaches for rigorous and comprehensive evaluation. Traditional human annotation is increasingly impracticable due to the complexities and costs involved in generating high-quality, challenging problems. In this work, we introduce CHASE, a unified framework to synthetically generate challenging problems using LLMs without human involvement. For a given task, our approach builds a hard problem in a bottom-up manner from simpler components. Moreover, our framework decomposes the generation process into independently verifiable sub-tasks, thereby ensuring a high level of quality and correctness. We implement CHASE to create evaluation benchmarks across three diverse domains: (1) document-based question answering, (2) repository-level code completion, and (3) math reasoning. The performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these synthetic benchmarks lies in the range of 40-60% accuracy, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of our framework at generating challenging problems. We publicly release our benchmarks and code.
Ensuring the reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in complex reasoning tasks remains a formidable challenge, particularly in scenarios that demand precise mathematical calculations and knowledge-intensive open-domain generation. In this work, we introduce an uncertainty-aware framework designed to enhance the accuracy of LLM responses by systematically incorporating model confidence at critical decision points. We propose an approach that encourages multi-step reasoning in LLMs and quantify the confidence of intermediate answers such as numerical results in mathematical reasoning and proper nouns in open-domain generation. Then, the overall confidence of each reasoning chain is evaluated based on confidence of these critical intermediate steps. Finally, we aggregate the answer of generated response paths in a way that reflects the reliability of each generated content (as opposed to self-consistency in which each generated chain contributes equally to majority voting). We conducted extensive experiments in five datasets, three mathematical datasets and two open-domain datasets, using four LLMs. The results consistently validate the effectiveness of our novel confidence aggregation method, leading to an accuracy improvement of up to 7.4% and 5.8% over baseline approaches in math and open-domain generation tasks, respectively. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/ Aquasar11/CER.
Increasing test-time compute for LLMs shows promise across domains but remains underexplored in code generation, despite extensive study in math. In this paper, we propose S*, the first hybrid test-time scaling framework that substantially improves the coverage and selection accuracy of generated code. S* extends the existing parallel scaling paradigm with sequential scaling to push performance boundaries. It further leverages a novel selection mechanism that adaptively generates distinguishing inputs for pairwise comparison, combined with execution-grounded information to robustly identify correct solutions. We evaluate across 12 Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Model and show: (1) S* consistently improves performance across model families and sizes, enabling a 3B model to outperform GPT-4o-mini; (2) S* enables non-reasoning models to surpass reasoning models - GPT-4o-mini with S* outperforms o1-preview by 3.7% on LiveCodeBench; (3) S* further boosts state-of-the-art reasoning models - DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B with S* achieves 85.7% on LiveCodeBench, approaching o1 (high) at 88.5%. Code will be available under https://github.com/NovaSky-AI/SkyThought.
Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has gained attention as an efficient alternative to reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Despite its advantages, DPO suffers from a length bias, generating responses longer than those from the reference model. Existing solutions like SimPO and SamPO address this issue but uniformly treat the contribution of rewards across sequences, overlooking temporal dynamics. To this end, we propose an enhanced preference optimization method that incorporates a temporal decay factor controlled by a gamma parameter. This dynamic weighting mechanism adjusts the influence of each reward based on its position in the sequence, prioritizing earlier tokens that are more critical for alignment. By adaptively focusing on more relevant feedback, our approach mitigates overfitting to less pertinent data and remains responsive to evolving human preferences. Experimental results on several benchmarks show that our approach consistently outperforms vanilla DPO by 5.9-8.8 points on AlpacaEval 2 and 3.3-9.7 points on Arena-Hard across different model architectures and sizes. Furthermore, additional experiments on mathematical and reasoning benchmarks (MMLU, GSM8K, and MATH) confirm that our method enhances performance without compromising general capabilities. Our codebase would be available at \url{https://github.com/LotuSrc/D2PO}.
Recent progress in large language models (LLM) found chain-of-thought prompting strategies to improve the reasoning ability of LLMs by encouraging problem solving through multiple steps. Therefore, subsequent research aimed to integrate the multi-step reasoning process into the LLM itself through process rewards as feedback and achieved improvements over prompting strategies. Due to the cost of step-level annotation, some turn to outcome rewards as feedback. Aside from these training-based approaches, training-free techniques leverage frozen LLMs or external tools for feedback at each step to enhance the reasoning process. With the abundance of work in mathematics due to its logical nature, we present a survey of strategies utilizing feedback at the step and outcome levels to enhance multi-step math reasoning for LLMs. As multi-step reasoning emerges a crucial component in scaling LLMs, we hope to establish its foundation for easier understanding and empower further research.
Despite their growing capabilities, language models still frequently reproduce content from their training data, generate repetitive text, and favor common grammatical patterns and vocabulary. A possible cause is the decoding strategy: the most common strategies either consider only the most probable tokens, which reduces output diversity, or increase the likelihood of unlikely tokens, compromising output accuracy and correctness. In this paper, we propose three new decoding methods that leverage a mathematical analysis of the token probability distribution to ensure the generation of contextually appropriate text. In particular, the difference between consecutive, sorted probabilities can be used to truncate incorrect tokens. Experiments concerning math problem solving, extreme summarization, and the divergent association task demonstrate that our approach consistently performs at least as well as existing methods in terms of quality and diversity.
Scaling reasoning capabilities beyond traditional domains such as math and coding is hindered by the lack of diverse and high-quality questions. To overcome this limitation, we introduce a scalable approach for generating diverse and challenging reasoning questions, accompanied by reference answers. We present NaturalReasoning, a comprehensive dataset comprising 2.8 million questions that span multiple domains, including STEM fields (e.g., Physics, Computer Science), Economics, Social Sciences, and more. We demonstrate the utility of the questions in NaturalReasoning through knowledge distillation experiments which show that NaturalReasoning can effectively elicit and transfer reasoning capabilities from a strong teacher model. Furthermore, we demonstrate that NaturalReasoning is also effective for unsupervised self-training using external reward models or self-rewarding.
Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of LLM test-time scaling. However, existing approaches to incentivize LLMs' deep thinking abilities generally require large-scale data or significant training efforts. Meanwhile, it remains unclear how to improve the thinking abilities of less powerful base models. In this work, we introduce S$^2$R, an efficient framework that enhances LLM reasoning by teaching models to self-verify and self-correct during inference. Specifically, we first initialize LLMs with iterative self-verification and self-correction behaviors through supervised fine-tuning on carefully curated data. The self-verification and self-correction skills are then further strengthened by both outcome-level and process-level reinforcement learning, with minimized resource requirements, enabling the model to adaptively refine its reasoning process during inference. Our results demonstrate that, with only 3.1k self-verifying and self-correcting behavior initialization samples, Qwen2.5-math-7B achieves an accuracy improvement from 51.0\% to 81.6\%, outperforming models trained on an equivalent amount of long-CoT distilled data. Extensive experiments and analysis based on three base models across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks validate the effectiveness of S$^2$R. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/NineAbyss/S2R.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has been highly successful in aligning large language models with human preferences. While prevalent methods like DPO have demonstrated strong performance, they frame interactions with the language model as a bandit problem, which limits their applicability in real-world scenarios where multi-turn conversations are common. Additionally, DPO relies on the Bradley-Terry model assumption, which does not adequately capture the non-transitive nature of human preferences. In this paper, we address these challenges by modeling the alignment problem as a two-player constant-sum Markov game, where each player seeks to maximize their winning rate against the other across all steps of the conversation. Our approach Multi-step Preference Optimization (MPO) is built upon the natural actor-critic framework~\citep{peters2008natural}. We further develop OMPO based on the optimistic online gradient descent algorithm~\citep{rakhlin2013online,joulani17a}. Theoretically, we provide a rigorous analysis for both algorithms on convergence and show that OMPO requires $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-1})$ policy updates to converge to an $\epsilon$-approximate Nash equilibrium. We also validate the effectiveness of our method on multi-turn conversations dataset and math reasoning dataset.
In LLM evaluations, reasoning is often distinguished from recall/memorization by performing numerical variations to math-oriented questions. Here we introduce a general variation method for multiple-choice questions that completely dissociates the correct answer from previously seen tokens or concepts, requiring LLMs to understand and reason (rather than memorizing) in order to answer correctly. Using this method, we evaluate state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs on two datasets available in English and Spanish: the public MMLU benchmark and the private UNED-Access 2024 dataset. Results show that all models experience remarkable accuracy drops under our proposed variation, with an average loss of 57% on MMLU and 50% on UNED-Access 2024, ranging from 10% to 93% across models. Notably, the most accurate model in our experimentation (OpenAI-o3-mini) is not the most robust (DeepSeek-R1-70B), suggesting that the best models in standard evaluations may not be the ones with better reasoning capabilities. Also, we see larger accuracy drops in public (vs private) datasets and questions posed in their original language (vs a manual translation), which are signs of contamination and also point to a relevant role of recall/memorization in current LLMs' answers.
Due to the demand for efficient fine-tuning of large language models, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) has been widely adopted as one of the most effective parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. Nevertheless, while LoRA improves efficiency, there remains room for improvement in accuracy. Herein, we adopt a novel perspective to assess the characteristics of LoRA ranks. The results reveal that different ranks within the LoRA modules not only exhibit varying levels of importance but also evolve dynamically throughout the fine-tuning process, which may limit the performance of LoRA. Based on these findings, we propose BeamLoRA, which conceptualizes each LoRA module as a beam where each rank naturally corresponds to a potential sub-solution, and the fine-tuning process becomes a search for the optimal sub-solution combination. BeamLoRA dynamically eliminates underperforming sub-solutions while expanding the parameter space for promising ones, enhancing performance with a fixed rank. Extensive experiments across three base models and 12 datasets spanning math reasoning, code generation, and commonsense reasoning demonstrate that BeamLoRA consistently enhances the performance of LoRA, surpassing the other baseline methods.
Large language models (LLMs) now achieve near-human performance on standard math word problem benchmarks (e.g., GSM8K), yet their true reasoning ability remains disputed. A key concern is that models often produce confident, yet unfounded, answers to unanswerable problems. We introduce TreeCut, a synthetic dataset that systematically generates infinite unanswerable math word problems and their answerable counterparts, by representing each question as a tree and removing chosen necessary conditions. Experiments show TreeCut effectively induce hallucinations in large language models, including GPT-4o and o3-mini, with rates of 64% and 44% in their respective worst-case scenarios under zero-shot setting. Further analysis highlights that deeper or more complex trees, composite item names, and removing necessary condition near the middle of a path all increase the likelihood of hallucinations, underscoring the persistent challenges LLMs face in identifying unanswerable math problems. The dataset generation code and sample data are available at https://github.com/j-bagel/treecut-math.
Self-improving large language models (LLMs) -- i.e., to improve the performance of an LLM by fine-tuning it with synthetic data generated by itself -- is a promising way to advance the capabilities of LLMs while avoiding extensive supervision. Existing approaches to self-improvement often rely on external supervision signals in the form of seed data and/or assistance from third-party models. This paper presents Crescent -- a simple yet effective framework for generating high-quality synthetic question-answer data in a fully autonomous manner. Crescent first elicits the LLM to generate raw questions via a bait prompt, then diversifies these questions leveraging a rejection sampling-based self-deduplication, and finally feeds the questions to the LLM and collects the corresponding answers by means of majority voting. We show that Crescent sheds light on the potential of true self-improvement with zero external supervision signals for math reasoning; in particular, Crescent-generated question-answer pairs suffice to (i) improve the reasoning capabilities of an LLM while preserving its general performance (especially in the 0-shot setting); and (ii) distil LLM knowledge to weaker models more effectively than existing methods based on seed-dataset augmentation.
In this work, we propose Reinforced Functional Token Tuning (RFTT), a novel reinforced fine-tuning framework that empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) with self-play learn-to-reason capabilities. Unlike prior prompt-driven reasoning efforts, RFTT embeds a rich set of learnable functional tokens (e.g., <analyze>, <verify>, <refine>) directly into the model vocabulary, enabling chain-of-thought construction with diverse human-like reasoning behaviors. Specifically, RFTT comprises two phases: (1) supervised fine-tuning performs prompt-driven tree search to obtain self-generated training data annotated with functional tokens, which warms up the model to learn these tokens for reasoning; and (2) online reinforcement learning further allows the model to explore different reasoning pathways through functional token sampling without relying on prompts, thereby facilitating effective self-improvement for functional reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed RFTT on mathematical benchmarks, significantly boosting Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct (70.6% to 79.8%) and LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct (32.2% to 60.2%) on the MATH dataset. Moreover, the performance of RFTT consistently improves with more search rollouts at inference time. Our code is available at https://github.com/sastpg/RFTT.
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) has been a go-to and effective method for enhancing long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in relatively small LLMs by fine-tuning them with long CoT responses from larger LLMs. To continually improve reasoning abilities, we can either collect new high-quality long CoT reasoning SFT data or repeatedly train on existing SFT datasets. However, acquiring new long CoT SFT data is costly and limited, while repeated training often results in a performance plateau or decline. To further boost the performance with the SFT data, we propose Thinking Preference Optimization (ThinkPO), a simple yet effective post-SFT method that enhances long CoT reasoning without requiring new long CoT responses. Instead, ThinkPO utilizes readily available or easily obtainable short CoT reasoning responses as rejected answers and long CoT responses as chosen answers for the same question. It then applies direct preference optimization to encourage the model to favor longer reasoning outputs. Experiments show that ThinkPO further improves the reasoning performance of SFT-ed models, e.g. it increases math reasoning accuracy of SFT-ed models by 8.6% and output length by 25.9%. Notably, ThinkPO is capable of continually boosting the performance of the publicly distilled SFT model, e.g., increasing the official DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B's performance on MATH500 from 87.4% to 91.2%.
Despite the increasing use of large language models for creative tasks, their outputs often lack diversity. Common solutions, such as sampling at higher temperatures, can compromise the quality of the results. Drawing on information theory, we propose a context-based score to quantitatively evaluate value and originality. This score incentivizes accuracy and adherence to the request while fostering divergence from the learned distribution. We propose using our score as a reward in a reinforcement learning framework to fine-tune large language models for maximum performance. We validate our strategy through experiments in poetry generation and math problem solving, demonstrating that it enhances the value and originality of the generated solutions.
Long-context large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance in information retrieval and long-document QA. However, to tackle the most challenging intellectual problems, LLMs must reason effectively in long and complex contexts (e.g., frontier mathematical research). Studying how LLMs handle increasing reasoning complexity and context length is essential, yet existing benchmarks lack a solid basis for quantitative evaluation. Inspired by the abstraction of GSM-8K problems as computational graphs, and the ability to introduce noise by adding unnecessary nodes and edges, we develop a grade school math problem generator capable of producing arithmetic problems with infinite difficulty and context length under fine-grained control. Using our newly synthesized GSM-Infinite benchmark, we comprehensively evaluate existing LLMs. We find a consistent sigmoid decline in reasoning performance as complexity increases, along with a systematic inference scaling trend: exponentially increasing inference computation yields only linear performance gains. These findings underscore the fundamental limitations of current long-context LLMs and the key challenges in scaling reasoning capabilities. Our GSM-Infinite benchmark provides a scalable and controllable testbed for systematically studying and advancing LLM reasoning in long and complex contexts.
Auto-evaluating language models (LMs), i.e., using a grader LM to evaluate the candidate LM, is an appealing way to accelerate the evaluation process and the cost associated with it. But this presents a paradox: how can we trust the grader LM, which is presumably weaker than the candidate LM, to assess problems that are beyond the frontier of the capabilities of either model or both? For instance, today's LMs struggle on graduate-level physics and Olympiad-level math, making them unreliable graders in these domains. We show that providing privileged information -- such as ground-truth solutions or problem-specific guidelines -- improves automated evaluations on such frontier problems. This approach offers two key advantages. First, it expands the range of problems where LMs graders apply. Specifically, weaker models can now rate the predictions of stronger models. Second, privileged information can be used to devise easier variations of challenging problems which improves the separability of different LMs on tasks where their performance is generally low. With this approach, general-purpose LM graders match the state of the art performance on RewardBench, surpassing almost all the specially-tuned models. LM graders also outperform individual human raters on Vibe-Eval, and approach human expert graders on Olympiad-level math problems.
Decoding strategies significantly influence the quality and diversity of the generated texts in large language models (LLMs), yet their impact on computational resource consumption, particularly GPU energy usage, is insufficiently studied. This paper investigates the relationship between text generation decoding methods and energy efficiency, focusing on the trade-off between generation quality and GPU energy consumption across diverse tasks and decoding configurations. By benchmarking multiple strategies across different text generation tasks, such as Translation, Code Summarization, and Math Problem Solving, we reveal how selecting appropriate decoding techniques with their tuned hyperparameters affects text quality and has measurable implications for resource utilization, emphasizing the need for balanced optimization. To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to explore decoding strategies in LLMs through the lens of energy consumption, offering actionable insights for designing resource-aware applications that maintain high-quality text generation.