Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Right Is Not Enough: The Pitfalls of Outcome Supervision in Training LLMs for Math Reasoning

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Outcome-rewarded LLMs get correct answers through flawed reasoning most of the time.

desk verdict A useful, likely-true measurement of the answer-vs-reasoning gap in LLMs, undercut by unreleased data and missing annotation reliability. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06877 v2 pith:JVW23KQH submitted 2025-06-07 cs.CL

Jiaxing Guo , Wenjie Yang , Shengzhong Zhang , Tongshan Xu , Lun Du , Da Zheng , Zengfeng Huang This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords mathematicalreasoningoutcomesupervisionrewardhackingprocessverificationcorrectnessLLM-as-a-judgestep-by-stepMathOlympiadEval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that outcome-rewarded LLMs often get the right final answer through unsound reasoning, and that answer-only evaluation therefore overstates mathematical ability. On MathOlympiadEval, a new dataset of 204 competition problems with human reasoning-quality labels, two outcome-rewarded reasoning models score 80.1% answer accuracy but only 39.7% process correctness, and fewer than half of correct answers rest on sound reasoning. The paper also finds that 57.7% of solution traces sampled from a public SFT dataset contain reasoning flaws, suggesting flawed model outputs can contaminate training data. To make process flaws visible, the paper builds ParaStepVerifier, a step-by-step verifier that flags the exact step where reasoning breaks down and outperforms holistic LLM-as-a-judge baselines at detecting flawed solutions.

What carries the argument

The paper's main instrument is MathOlympiadEval, a dataset pairing each problem's answer correctness with a human label of reasoning correctness plus a predefined error typology (solution by guess, circular reasoning, inequality manipulation errors, calculation errors, logical fallacies). The second instrument is ParaStepVerifier, an LLM agent that decomposes a solution into steps, verifies each step against the problem statement and the preceding valid steps, and marks the solution incorrect if any step contains an error; the agent includes explicit error classification and parallel processing. Together they turn 'reasoning soundness' from a vague ideal into a per-step, checkable predicate.

What would settle it

Re-annotate the same 146 answer-finding solutions with independent judges who are blind to the official reference answers, and compare their reasoning labels to the paper's labels; if agreement is low or the gap between answer accuracy and reasoning accuracy shrinks sharply, the central claim would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that optimizing LLMs for final answers incentivizes reward hacking: models discover shortcuts that yield the right answer while the reasoning path is invalid. Human judges on the dataset labeled only 39.7% of reasoning paths sound despite 80.1% correct answers; among 117 correct answers, 49.6% had sound reasoning, and on IMO problems the rate of sound reasoning among correct answers was 0.0%. Error analysis attributes most flawed paths to logical fallacies (59.8%) and solution by guessing (34.1%). The paper concludes that outcome supervision alone is insufficient and that evaluation must verify the reasoning process, not just the answer.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gap measurement depends on the human annotations of reasoning correctness being consistent and fair, and the paper does not report inter-annotator agreement on those labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Answer accuracy as the sole metric overstates LLM math reasoning: at 80.1% answer correctness, only 39.7% of reasoning paths are sound, so benchmark rankings based on answers are partly rankings of unsound shortcut-finding.
  • Outcome-rewarded RL should be audited for process soundness: the 0.0% sound-reasoning rate among correct IMO answers in this sample means reward hacking is most severe where problems are hardest.
  • Model-generated solutions in SFT data risk propagating flawed reasoning: with 57.7% of sampled traces flawed, filtering or re-annotating training solutions by process correctness is a direct safeguard.
  • Step-by-step verification with error classification improves flawed-solution detection over holistic judging, with the largest gains on long solutions, so process-based evaluation is a workable alternative to LLM-as-a-judge.
  • Verification by ParaStepVerifier can surpass stronger holistic judges at lower cost, making process-level evaluation practical for large-scale use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: train one model on SFT data filtered by ParaStepVerifier and another on unfiltered data; the contamination result predicts the filtered model should produce fewer logical fallacies.
  • If the gap holds across other benchmarks, reporting process accuracy next to answer accuracy would change how model releases are compared.
  • The extreme 0.0% IMO sound-reasoning figure could partly reflect annotation stringency; an independent annotation study with rubrics and inter-annotator agreement would separate labeling effects from model behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MathOlympiadEval, a dataset of 204 competition-style mathematics problems (CMO, IMO, and OpenMathReasoning) with human annotations of both final-answer correctness and step-level reasoning correctness. On 146 answer-finding problems, the authors report that two outcome-rewarded models, DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B, achieve 80.1% answer accuracy but only 39.7% human-judged reasoning correctness, and that only 49.6% of correct answers are backed by sound reasoning, with 0.0% on IMO problems. The authors also report that 57.7% of sampled OpenMathReasoning solution traces contain reasoning flaws, and they propose ParaStepVerifier, an LLM agent that verifies each solution step against the problem statement and preceding steps, reporting F1-score improvements over LLM-as-a-judge baselines and moderate cost advantages. The central claim is that answer-only evaluation substantially overstates LLM mathematical reasoning ability and that this gap is a symptom of outcome-based reward optimization.

Significance. If the human annotations are reliable, the paper identifies a practically important phenomenon: high benchmark accuracy can coexist with systematically unsound reasoning, which has direct implications for how LLM math reasoning is evaluated and how training data are curated. The strengths include a genuinely new annotated dataset with a five-category error taxonomy, a three-round expert review process, informative case studies, and a concrete automated verifier whose ablation studies separate the contributions of step-by-step verification and error classification. The ParaStepVerifier results, with consistent F1 gains over LLM-as-a-judge across four base models, are useful even independently of the headline gap. However, the paper's load-bearing empirical claims rest entirely on human binary labels whose reliability is not demonstrated, and the causal connection to outcome-based RL is asserted rather than tested. The significance is therefore conditional on the label-validity evidence that the current manuscript does not provide.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The headline gap between answer correctness (80.1%) and human-judged reasoning correctness (39.7%), and the derived sound-reasoning rates among correct answers (49.6% overall, 0.0% IMO), rest entirely on binary human labels of reasoning correctness, but Section 3.2 reports no inter-annotator agreement, no blinded re-annotation, and no rubric operationalizing 'each step logically follows from the problem statement and preceding steps.' Because Eq. (3) makes a single flawed step fatal to the whole solution, annotator severity is decisive, and the three-round review by different annotators is not a substitute for independent agreement measurement. I ask for a double-annotated subset with agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa), the full annotation guidelines, and explicit handling of borderline cases; without this, the 40-point gap and the IMO 0% result may be labeling artifacts rather than genuine model behavior.
  2. [Table 1, IMO row] The IMO claim that 'none of these correct answers stem from sound reasoning' is based on 13 correct answers. With n=13, an observed 0/13 count gives an upper one-sided 95% confidence bound of roughly 20%, so the data do not support treating 0.0% as a stable estimate or as evidence of a qualitative difference between IMO and other sources. Please report confidence intervals and raw counts, and ideally expand the IMO sample before drawing this strong conclusion.
  3. [Introduction, Section 3.3] The title and the Introduction attribute the answer-reasoning gap to outcome-based reward optimization ('optimizing solely for final outcomes can incentivize models to adopt shortcut strategies'), but the evaluation is observational: only two outcome-rewarded models (QwQ-32B and DeepSeek-R1) are used, and no comparison is made against process-supervised, purely SFT, or otherwise differently trained models. The causal claim about outcome-based supervision is therefore not tested by the current design. I recommend either adding a controlled comparison of training signals or reformulating the causal language to associational language such as 'is associated with,' in the abstract and throughout.
  4. [Section 1, OpenMathReasoning claim] The Introduction states that 57.7% of sampled OpenMathReasoning solution traces contain reasoning flaws, but the reported numbers in Table 1 do not support this specific figure: the OpenMathReasoning row shows 53.6% human reasoning correctness (i.e., 46.4% flawed traces) and 57.7% sound reasoning among correct answers (i.e., 42.3% flawed among correct answers). Neither equals the claimed contamination rate. Please report the separate SFT-contamination analysis with its sample size, selection procedure, and annotation statistics, or remove the claim if it is not based on a distinct analysis.
  5. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (3)] The step-concatenation threshold θ=12 tokens is an ad hoc free parameter that directly affects the step decomposition and hence the verdict of Eq. (3), but no sensitivity analysis or justification is provided. Because Tables 3 and 4 compare solutions grouped by step count, the segmentation rule can influence which problems fall into the '>7 steps' and '>9 steps' subsets. Please provide a robustness check of the main F1 results with respect to reasonable values of θ.
  6. [Section 5.1, Tables 2 and 3] The F1 evaluation treats the human labels as ground truth and inherits the label-reliability concern raised above. In addition, no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported for any F1 difference, and several Table 3 entries (notably o1-mini for '>9 steps,' with an F1 jump from 44.44 to 66.67) are likely based on very small numbers of solutions. Please report sample sizes per cell and bootstrap confidence intervals or equivalent uncertainty estimates for the F1 scores and relative improvements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The dataset contains 58 proof-based problems, but Table 1 and the primary analysis cover only 146 answer-finding problems; please report the proof-based results separately or explain why they are excluded from the headline claims.
  2. [Section 4.2.2] The Analysis Context includes future steps Fi+1, while the formal definition in Eq. (1) evaluates si using only (P, Hi−1). The prompt design should specify how the model is prevented from using future steps as justification; otherwise, the formal definition and the implementation may diverge.
  3. [Section 5.1] There is a typo in the opening sentence of Section 5.1: 'our datadet MATHOLYMPIAD EVAL' should read 'our dataset MATHOLYMPIAD EVAL.'
  4. [Table 2] The 'Overall' F1 column should state whether it is macro-averaged over the three sub-datasets or computed on the pooled set; these methods can give different results given the different class balances across CMO, IMO, and OpenMathReasoning.
  5. [Section 5.2.1] The cost estimates in Table 2 lack explicit assumptions such as API pricing date, model tier, and batch settings; please add a footnote with these details so that the cost comparison is reproducible.
  6. [Appendix A.2] Figure 3 reports error-type percentages (logical fallacies 59.8%, guessing 34.1%) but does not state the denominator or whether each solution was assigned exactly one primary error type; please clarify the counting rule.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central gap is an empirical measurement against external human annotations, and ParaStepVerifier is evaluated against those annotations as ground truth without being fitted to them.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The headline claim (80.1% answer correctness vs. 39.7% reasoning correctness, and 49.6% sound reasoning among correct answers) is computed from human binary labels of reasoning correctness defined in Section 3.1, with no parameter fitted to produce those numbers. ParaStepVerifier is an LLM-based verifier prompted to reproduce step-level judgments; Equations (1)-(3) formalize the human definition, and Equations (4)-(9) score the verifier against the human labels as external ground truth. No step fits a parameter and then predicts that same parameter, no prior result by the present authors is invoked as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The reliability of the human labels is a validity concern, not a circularity concern, because the labels are independent of the model outputs being measured.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main empirical claims rest on human annotation reliability and sample representativeness rather than on fitted model parameters. The only hand-set numeric parameter is the step-length threshold in ParaStepVerifier. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Step concatenation threshold θ = 12 tokens
    Adjacent solution steps shorter than 12 tokens are concatenated to form verifiable units; the value is set empirically with no sensitivity analysis (Section 4.2.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Human annotations of reasoning correctness are a reliable ground truth.
    The headline gap figures and all F1 evaluations rely on annotations by mathematics graduate students; no inter-annotator agreement or rubric validation is reported (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption QwQ-32B and DeepSeek-R1 are representative of outcome-rewarded models, so the gap can be attributed to outcome-based RL.
    The paper compares two existing models without a controlled training intervention, yet frames the result as evidence of reward hacking from outcome rewards (Sections 1 and 3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Each solution step can be verified from the problem statement and previous steps alone, with future steps providing context without biasing the judgment.
    ParaStepVerifier includes future steps in the prompt while instructing the model to judge based on previous context; the validity of this separation is assumed (Section 4.2.2).
  • domain assumption Random sampling from CMO, IMO, and OpenMathReasoning yields a representative benchmark.
    No seed, sampling protocol, or difficulty calibration is given, and the three sources have very different answer accuracy rates (Section 3.2, Table 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Right Is Not Enough: The Pitfalls of Outcome Supervision in Training LLMs for Math Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVW23KQH

@misc{pith2026250606877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Right Is Not Enough: The Pitfalls of Outcome Supervision in Training LLMs for Math Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVW23KQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06877}
}
read the original abstract

Outcome-rewarded Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in mathematical problem-solving. However, this success often masks a critical issue: models frequently achieve correct answers through fundamentally unsound reasoning processes, a phenomenon indicative of reward hacking. We introduce MathOlympiadEval, a new dataset with fine-grained annotations, which reveals a significant gap between LLMs' answer correctness and their low process correctness. Existing automated methods like LLM-as-a-judge struggle to reliably detect these reasoning flaws. To address this, we propose ParaStepVerifier, a novel methodology for meticulous, step-by-step verification of mathematical solutions. ParaStepVerifier identifies incorrect reasoning steps. Empirical results demonstrate that ParaStepVerifier substantially improves the accuracy of identifying flawed solutions compared to baselines, especially for complex, multi-step problems. This offers a more robust path towards evaluating and training LLMs with genuine mathematical reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Large Language Models frequently achieve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of problems by the number of reasoning steps in their solutions. The x-axis indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of primary error types identified in LLM-generated solutions with flawed reasoning. Logical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Basic LLM-as-a-judge prompt for holistic solution evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LLM-as-a-judge prompt with an added error classification requirement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ParaStepVerifier prompt for step-wise evaluation without explicit error categories listed in the instruction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ParaStepVerifier prompt with step-wise evaluation and explicit error classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - For n = 1: (21 − 1)(31 − 1) = (2 − 1)(3 − 1) = 1 · 2 = 2 Since 2 is not a perfect square, n = 1 is not a solution

    **Check small values of n:** - For n = 0: (20 − 1)(30 − 1) = (1 − 1)(1 − 1) = 0 · 0 = 0 = 02 So, (m, n) = (0, 0) is a solution. - For n = 1: (21 − 1)(31 − 1) = (2 − 1)(3 − 1) = 1 · 2 = 2 Since 2 is not a perfect square, n = 1 is not a solution. - For n = 2: (22 − 1)(32 − 1) = (4 − 1)(9 − 1) = 3 · 8 = 24 Since 24 is not a perfect square, n = 2 is not a sol...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Then A · B = m2

    **Analyze the general case:** Let A = 2n − 1 and B = 3n − 1. Then A · B = m2. For A · B to be a perfect square, A and B must share a common factor d such that d is a perfect square, and the remaining factors of A and B after dividing by d must also be perfect squares. - Compute the GCD of 2n − 1 and 3n − 1: GCD(2n − 1, 3n − 1) For n ≥ 1, 2n − 1 is odd and...

    work page

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

    Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437. Hamed Mahdavi, Alireza Hashemi, Majid Daliri, Pegah Mohammadipour, Alireza Farhadi, Samira Malek, Yekta Yazdanifard, Amir Khasahmadi, and Vasant Honavar. 2025. Brains vs. bytes: Evaluating llm proficiency in olympiad mathematics. Preprint, arXiv:2504.01995. Ivan Moshkov, Darragh Hanley, Ivan S...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Preprint, arXiv:2404.13076

    Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations. Preprint, arXiv:2404.13076. Ivo Petrov, Jasper Dekoninck, Lyuben Baltadzhiev, Maria Drencheva, Kristian Minchev, Mislav Balunovi´c, Nikola Jovanovi ´c, and Martin Vechev

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    correct answers via flawed reasoning,

    Proof or bluff? evaluating llms on 2025 usa math olympiad. Preprint, arXiv:2503.21934. Team Qwen. 2025. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning. URL: https://qwenlm. github. io/blog/qwq-32b. Melanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Alane Suhr. 2024. Quantifying language models’ sensitiv- ity to spurious features in prompt design or: H...

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    **Distance ED**: - The distance ED is the horizontal distance between E and D: ED = 8x 5 + x − 3 = 8x − 3(5 + x) 5 + x = 8x − 15 − 3x 5 + x = 5x − 15 5 + x = 5(x − 3) 5 + x

    work page

  7. [7]

    **Expression Evaluation**: - The expression to evaluate is: AC + AB AC − AB ED = x + 5 x − 5 · 5(x − 3) 5 + x - Simplifying the expression: x + 5 x − 5 · 5(x − 3) 5 + x = 5(x − 3) x − 5 - Since x >5, the expression simplifies to: 5(x − 3) x − 5 = 3 Thus, the value of the expression is 3 . C.2 CMO Case Study – CMO: Solution by Guess Problem Description: Gi...

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    **Conclusion:** From the above analysis, the only value of n that results in a perfect square is n = 0. Therefore, the only non-negative integer solution is: (m, n) = (0, 0) Case Study – OpenMathReasoning: Solution by Guess Problem Description: Given a, b, c≥ 0 and a + b + c = ab + bc + ca >0, find the greatest positive real number k such that (kab + 1)(k...

    work page

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Here, a + b + c = 3 and ab + bc + ca = 3, which satisfies the given condition

    **Case Analysis:** - Consider the case where a = b = c = 1 . Here, a + b + c = 3 and ab + bc + ca = 3, which satisfies the given condition. Substituting these values into the inequality, we get: (k · 1 · 1 + 1)(k · 1 · 1 + 1)(k · 1 · 1 + 1) = (k + 1)3. This shows that equality...

  2. [10]

    The condition a + b + 0 = ab + 0 + 0 simplifies to a + b = ab

    **Case with One Variable Zero:** - Consider the case where c = 0. The condition a + b + 0 = ab + 0 + 0 simplifies to a + b = ab. Solving for a and b, we get b = a a−1. A valid solution is a = 2 and b = 2. Substituting a = 2, b = 2, and c = 0 into the inequality, we get: (k · 2...

  3. [11]

    For instance, if we take a = 1.5, b = 1.5, and c = 0.375, the inequality still holds for k = −3+ √ 13 2

    **Verification:** - We need to verify that this value ofk works for other cases. For instance, if we take a = 1.5, b = 1.5, and c = 0.375, the inequality still holds for k = −3+ √ 13 2 . However, if k exceeds this value, the inequality fails for the case a = b = 2 and c = 0. T...

  4. [12]

    - Place E at (3, 0) since AE = 3

    **Coordinate System Setup**: - Place A at (0, 0). - Place E at (3, 0) since AE = 3. - Place B at (3, 4) since BE = 4 and AE = 3

  5. [13]

    Let AC = x

    **Angle Bisector Theorem**: - By the Angle Bisector Theorem, the internal angle bisector of ∠A divides BC in the ratio of the adjacent sides AB and AC. Let AC = x. Therefore, BD DC = AB AC = 5 x

  6. [14]

    The coordinates of D are given by: D = 5 · c_x + x · 3 5 + x , 5 · c_y + x · 0 5 + x where C = (c_x, c_y)

    **Coordinates of Point D**: - Since D lies on BC and the x-axis, we can use the section formula to find the coordinates of D. The coordinates of D are given by: D = 5 · c_x + x · 3 5 + x , 5 · c_y + x · 0 5 + x where C = (c_x, c_y). Since D lies on the x-axis, the y-coordinate...

  7. [15]

    **Finding c_x**: - Since AC = x, we have: p c_x2 = x =⇒ c_x = x 19 Therefore, C = (x, 0)

  8. [16]

    **Coordinates of D**: - Using the section formula again: D = 5 · x + x · 3 5 + x , 0 = 8x 5 + x , 0

  9. [19]

    This simplifies to 8ax + 16a + 4b ≤ 2x + 2

    For f (x + 4) − f (x) ≤ 2(x + 1): a(x + 4)2 + b(x + 4) + c − (ax2 + bx + c) ≤ 2x + 2. This simplifies to 8ax + 16a + 4b ≤ 2x + 2. Comparing the coefficients yields: 8a = 2 = ⇒ a = 1 4 , 20 16a + 4b ≤ 2 = ⇒ 4 + 4b ≤ 2 = ⇒ b ≤ −1 2

  10. [20]

    This simplifies to 24ax + 144a + 12b ≥ 6x + 30

    For f (x + 12) − f (x) ≥ 6(x + 5): a(x + 12)2 + b(x + 12) + c − (ax2 + bx + c) ≥ 6x + 30. This simplifies to 24ax + 144a + 12b ≥ 6x + 30. Comparing the coefficients yields: 24a = 6 = ⇒ a = 1 4 , 144a + 12b ≥ 30 = ⇒ 36 + 12b ≥ 30 = ⇒ b ≥ −1 2 . Combining the ranges for b gives b = − 1

  11. [21]

    Therefore, the function is: f (x) = 1 4 x2 − 1 2 x + 1008

    The initial condition f (0) = 1008 gives c = 1008. Therefore, the function is: f (x) = 1 4 x2 − 1 2 x + 1008. Calculating f (2016) with this function: f (2016) = 1 4 (2016)2 − 1 2 (2016) + 1008 = 1016064. The final answer is: 1016064 2016 = 504 Case Study – CMO: Solution by Gu...

    2016

  12. [22]

    **Sum and Product of Roots**: - According to Vieta’s formulas, the roots satisfy: - Sum of roots: r1 + r2 + r3 + r4 + r5 = 0 - Sum of products of roots, two at a time: P 1≤i<j≤5 rirj = −10

  13. [23]

    **Constructing Symmetric Roots**: - Assume the largest root is m and the other four roots are equal, let’s say to k. From the condition that the sum of roots is 0, we have: m + 4k = 0 = ⇒ k = − m 4 - Calculating the sum of the products of the roots taken two at a time: 6k2 + 4...

  14. [24]

    These roots satisfy the sum of roots being 0 and the sum of the products of the roots taken two at a time being -10, which matches the conditions

    **Verification of the Construction**: - When m = 4, the other four roots are −1. These roots satisfy the sum of roots being 0 and the sum of the products of the roots taken two at a time being -10, which matches the conditions

  15. [25]

    Discriminant analysis shows that a larger m cannot be constructed

    **Further Verification using Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality**: - The sum of the squares of the four roots is: 20 − m2 ≥ 0 = ⇒ m ≤ √ 20 ≈ 4.4721 - However, by constructing the symmetric case, we found that whenm = 4, the other four roots are −1, which satisfies all conditions. Discr...

  16. [26]

    We can also verify the result by solving for the general formula of the recurrence relation

    Thus, the recurrence relation is: Pn+1 = 1 3 (1 − Pn) Calculating the probabilities for each week through recurrence: 22 P1 = 1, P2 = 1 3 (1 − 1) = 0, P3 = 1 3 (1 − 0) = 1 3 , P4 = 1 3 1 − 1 3 = 2 9 , P5 = 1 3 1 − 2 9 = 7 27 , P6 = 1 3 1 − 7 27 = 20 81 , P7 = 1 3 1 − 20 81 = 6...

  17. [27]

    The left side, sin(πx), also has a period of 2

    **Equation Transformation and Periodicity Analysis** The right side of the equation is the fractional part function x 2 + 1 2, which has a period of 2. The left side, sin(πx), also has a period of 2. Therefore, the structure of the solutions can be analyzed within each interva...

  18. [28]

    **Interval Decomposition and Equation Segmentation** The interval [0, 2π] ≈ [0, 6.28] is divided into the following sub-intervals: - k = 0: [0, 2) - k = 1: [2, 4) - k = 2: [4, 6) - k = 3: [6, 6.28)

  19. [29]

    Let x = 2k + t (where t ∈ [0, 2))

    **Form of the Equation in Each Interval** Within the interval [2k, 2k + 2), the equation becomes: sin(πx) = x 2 − k + 1 2 . Let x = 2k + t (where t ∈ [0, 2)). The equation simplifies to: sin(πt) = t 2 + 1 2 . This indicates that the solutions within each interval are symmetric...

  20. [30]

    Therefore, the sum of the corresponding x solutions is: (2k + t1) + (2k + t2) = 4k + (t1 + t2) = 4k + 1

    **Symmetry and Sum of Solutions** The two solutionst1 and t2 within each interval[2k, 2k+2) satisfy t1 + t2 = 1. Therefore, the sum of the corresponding x solutions is: (2k + t1) + (2k + t2) = 4k + (t1 + t2) = 4k + 1. When summing, each interval contributes 4k + 1. For k = 0, ...

  21. [31]

    — **Final Answer** 12 C.3 IMO Case Study – IMO: Inequality Manipulation Errors Problem Description: Let R>0 be the set of positive real numbers

    **Conclusion** The sum of all solutions is: 2X k=0 (4k + 1) +partial sum = 1 + 5 + 9 +adjustment value ≈ 12. — **Final Answer** 12 C.3 IMO Case Study – IMO: Inequality Manipulation Errors Problem Description: Let R>0 be the set of positive real numbers. Determine all functions...

  22. [32]

    - Simplifying both sides by dividing by f (x) + f (f (x)) (which is positive), we get: x ≥ f (f (x))

    **Substitution y = f (x)**: - Substituting y = f (x) into the inequality gives: x(f (x) + f (f (x))) ≥ (f (f (x)) + f (x))f (f (x)). - Simplifying both sides by dividing by f (x) + f (f (x)) (which is positive), we get: x ≥ f (f (x)). - This implies f (f (x)) ≤ x for all x >0

  23. [33]

    - Simplifying both sides by dividing by f (y), we get: f (f (y)) + f (y) ≥ f (f (f (y))) + y

    **Substitution x = f (y)**: - Substituting x = f (y) into the inequality gives: f (y)(f (f (y)) + f (y)) ≥ (f (f (f (y))) + y)f (y). - Simplifying both sides by dividing by f (y), we get: f (f (y)) + f (y) ≥ f (f (f (y))) + y. - Since f (f (f (y))) ≤ f (y) (from f (f (z)) ≤ z ...

  24. [34]

    Combining these, we conclude: f (f (x)) = x - This shows that f is an involution, meaning f (f (x)) = x for all x >0

    **Combining Results**: - From the previous steps, we have f (f (x)) ≤ x and f (f (y)) ≥ y. Combining these, we conclude: f (f (x)) = x - This shows that f is an involution, meaning f (f (x)) = x for all x >0

  25. [35]

    **Testing Specific Functions**: - Consider f (x) = k x for some k > 0. Substitut- ing into the original inequality: - Left-hand side: x k x + k y = k + kx y - Right-hand side: (f (f (x)) + y) f (y) = ( x + y) k y = kx y + k - Both sides are equal, confirming that f (x) = k x s...

  26. [36]

    similar contradictions arise

    **Uniqueness of Solution**: - By analyzing the inequality and considering the necessary conditions for it to hold for all x, y >0, we conclude that the only functions satisfying the inequality are reciprocal functions. Any other function would fail to meet the involution prope...

  27. [37]

    - p = k2 − 1 = (k − 1)(k + 1)

    **Case a = 1:** - The equation becomes p + 1 = k2. - p = k2 − 1 = (k − 1)(k + 1). Since p is prime, one factor must be 1. - k − 1 = 1 = ⇒ k = 2, leading to p = 3. Thus, (1, 3) is a solution

  28. [38]

    - Factoring: (k − p)(k + p) = 16

    **Case a = 2:** - The equation becomes p2 + 16 = k2. - Factoring: (k − p)(k + p) = 16. The valid factor pair is (2, 8), giving k = 5 and p = 3. Thus, (2, 3) is a solution

  29. [39]

    - This factors as 34 · (32 + 24) = 81 · 25 = 452

    **Case a = 6:** - The equation becomes 36 + 64 = 729 + 1296 = 2025 = 452. - This factors as 34 · (32 + 24) = 81 · 25 = 452. Thus, (6, 3) is a solution

    2025

  30. [40]

    - This factors as 38 · (3 + 1) = 6561 · 4 = 1622

    **Case a = 9:** - The equation becomes 39 + 94 = 19683 + 6561 = 26244 = 1622. - This factors as 38 · (3 + 1) = 6561 · 4 = 1622. Thus, (9, 3) is a solution. **General Analysis for p ̸= 3:** - **Modulo 3 Analysis:** For p ̸= 3, p ≡ 1 or 2 (mod 3) . The sum pa + a4 must be a quad...

  31. [2024]

    Preprint, arXiv:2412.05579

    Llms-as-judges: A comprehensive sur- vey on llm-based evaluation methods. Preprint, arXiv:2412.05579. Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, and 1 others

    arXiv

  32. [2025]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shi- rong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others

    Rethinking hallucinations: Correctness, con- sistency, and prompt multiplicity. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shi- rong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, and 1 others. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms ...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.