Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Large Language Models through Structured Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that tagging each reasoning sentence with an explicit role label, then rewarding structured reasoning through a MAX-Flow attention-based importance score and an LCS concision score, lets a 1.5B model reach…

desk verdict The MAX-Flow reward is under-specified (which layer?), the RL reward composition is unclear, and the gains are within noise, but the core idea and the IISR validation are worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20241 v1 pith:N6HZ6KYM submitted 2025-06-25 cs.CL cs.AI

Yubo Dong , Hehe Fan This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords structuredreasoningsteptagsGRPOMAX-FlowrewardattentionmatrixLCSefficientmath1.5Blanguagemodel
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

This paper argues that giving a language model an explicit, labeled reasoning structure—each reasoning sentence tagged with its role, such as , , or —is enough to make a small model reason at a level normally reached by much larger training budgets. The authors fine-tune DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B on only 500 tagged examples, then apply GRPO with a new MAX-Flow reward that scores reasoning steps by how much traffic they carry in an attention-derived flow network, plus an LCS reward that encourages concise consensus. The resulting SR-FLOW model reaches 52.6 average and 58.1 large-benchmark accuracy, near-parity with DeepScaleR's 53.0 and 58.1 while using a small fraction of the RL training steps. The paper's claim, read sympathetically, is that structured reasoning turns a small fine-tuning budget into near-state-of-the-art accuracy while also making outputs shorter, more stable under temperature changes, and easier to stop early.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the step attention matrix: for a chosen layer, each entry $A_{ij}$ averages, over attention heads and over tokens of step $i$, the maximum attention paid to any token of step $j$, normalized by step length. Thresholding this matrix at $\tau = 0.05$ turns it into a directed graph, and the MAX-Flow reward runs Ford-Fulkerson from the question step to the answer step; the decrease in max flow when a step is removed ($\Delta F_k$) measures that step's contribution, and the reward $Q = 1 - \frac{\sum_{k \in K_{\text{top}}} \Delta F_k}{\sum_j \Delta F_j}$ encourages balanced reasoning. The companion LCS reward compares the longest common subsequence of reasoning tags across completions, with a length-suppression factor that penalizes padded steps, rewarding consensus among correct solutions and diversity from incorrect ones. Together they let GRPO optimize reasoning structure rather than just the final answer.

What would settle it

Run the IISR-style intervention on natural reasoning traces with human-annotated step importance: if removing or perturbing the step with the highest $\Delta F_k$ does not lower answer accuracy more than removing the lowest-$\Delta F_k$ step, then the flow score is not tracking causal importance. Concretely, a reader could take 70 correctly solved MATH500 traces, annotate each step's essentiality, and compare the flow ranking against the annotation ranking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that explicit structure is a training signal, not just a formatting choice. The authors tag every reasoning sentence with one of 23 cognitive-science-inspired labels, fine-tune on 500 such tagged traces, and then optimize with GRPO using rewards computed on the tagged structure. The MAX-Flow reward builds a directed graph whose nodes are reasoning steps and whose edge capacities come from a normalized, head-averaged, max-pooled attention matrix; the max flow from the question node to the answer node, and the drop in that flow when a step is removed, is read as the step's importance. A quality score Q rewards reasoning in which no small set of steps carries a disproportionate share of the flow. On six math benchmarks the resulting SR-FLOW model reaches 52.6 average accuracy (58.1 large-benchmark average), comparable to DeepScaleR and FastCuRL, with roughly 23 standardized training steps versus hundreds or thousands for those baselines. The same structure also yields shorter solutions, stable accuracy across sampling temperatures, and a tag-based early-stopping signal that detects the first correct answer sooner than token-interval or keyword triggers.

Load-bearing premise

That the attention the model pays between tagged reasoning steps is a faithful measure of each step's causal contribution to the final answer, so that rewarding a balanced flow of attention improves reasoning quality rather than merely reshaping the tags.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using only 500 tagged examples and 250 GRPO steps, a 1.5B model reaches average 52.6 and large-benchmark 58.1 accuracy, close to DeepScaleR (53.0/58.1) and FastCuRL (52.9/58.4) while training on a fraction of their compute.
  • The MAX-Flow reward shortens reasoning without an explicit length penalty: correct completions on MATH500 go from 9.57 to 7.84 average steps and token counts drop slightly, while accuracy improves over the standard accuracy reward.
  • Structured SFT is more stable under sampling temperature: accuracy stays nearly flat between temperature 0 and 0.6, whereas unstructured SFT gains several points, implying the model relies less on stochastic exploration to reach correct answers.
  • Tags provide a cheap early-stopping and test-time-scaling interface: tag-based probing needs 2.02 interventions on average and lands 78 tokens from the first correct answer, versus 3.93 interventions and 131 tokens for token-interval triggers.
  • In the paper's interference-injection experiments, step-matrix methods (top-K, top-P, max-flow) remove injected irrelevant steps more reliably than perplexity-based or random selection, supporting the claim that perplexity is the wrong proxy for step importance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates MAX-Flow only on its own synthetic IISR task, where interference steps are injected deliberately; a natural extension is to test the same importance scores against human annotations on natural, unmodified reasoning traces, and if flow-marked steps do not match human judgments, the reward mechanism would not generalize beyond injected noise.
  • Because the reward uses a single attention layer with head averaging and max pooling, the paper's own layer-wise analysis suggests a free improvement: later layers (14-27) appear to capture step importance better, so using those layers for the reward might strengthen the effect.
  • The balanced-importance objective could be a liability on problems whose solution genuinely depends on one decisive step; this is testable by comparing SR-FLOW and SR-ACC on a benchmark of single-lemma problems.
  • If tags prove robust, they offer a general interface for inference-time control—per-layer KV-cache pruning guided by attention span, MCTS-style step expansion, and adjustable reasoning-depth budgets—none of which the paper implements.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Structured Reasoning (SR) pipeline for LLMs: it converts reasoning traces into explicitly tagged steps, fine-tunes a 1.5B DeepSeek-R1-Distill model on 500 annotated examples, and then applies GRPO with two novel rewards, MAX-Flow and LCS. The authors report that this pipeline reaches an average of 52.6% on six math benchmarks and 58.1% on a three-benchmark large average, close to DeepScaleR's 53.0%/58.1%, while requiring far fewer training steps and GPUs (Table 1). They further analyze token efficiency, temperature stability, early stopping, and layer-wise attention patterns. The central claim is that explicit structured reasoning tags plus process-based rewards yield near-SOTA accuracy at a fraction of prior training cost.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it provides a low-cost recipe for improving a small reasoning model and demonstrates a concrete use of structured tags for token-length control, early stopping, and layer analysis. The multi-seed evaluation protocol (three seeds on large benchmarks, ten on small ones) and the public code release are strengths, and the LCS reward's token-efficiency result is an interesting empirical finding. However, the headline near-SOTA claim rests on an under-specified process reward and on differences that are often within one standard deviation of baselines, so the significance is currently conditional on resolving the specification and consistency issues below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2); Section A.7] The MAX-Flow reward is not a well-defined function of the model because the layer index is never specified. Equation (2) takes the attention tensor A from "a certain layer," but neither the main text nor A.7 states which layer is used during GRPO training. This is load-bearing because the paper's own Figure 4 shows that the step-importance signal varies by an order of magnitude across layers: at a retention rate of 0.1, layer 0 removes 5.82 steps, layer 1 removes 0.41 steps, and layers 14-27 remove more than 8 steps. Since the Q metric in Eq. (3) is computed from these layer-dependent ΔF_k values, the reward and its gradients are entirely different for different layer choices. The reported SR-FLOW gains over SR-ACC and the 58.1 Large Avg are therefore a single point in an unspecified hyperparameter space; a layer sweep or a fixed layer with an ablation is required to attribute the gains to the proposed mechanism rather than to layer selection.
  2. [Section 3.2; Section A.6; Figure 6] The only validation of the MAX-Flow scoring procedure is the IISR experiment, which tests offline step filtering on a small set of hand-injected reasoning chains, not reward optimization during RL. The text states that 70 correctly reasoned examples are used, but the captions in Figure 6 report sample sizes of 68 and 67. More importantly, the IISR setup measures whether injected interference steps are removed; it does not test whether the Q objective in Eq. (3), which rewards balanced contributions, improves final-answer accuracy. The paper therefore does not establish the mechanism by which the MAX-Flow reward should improve benchmark accuracy. This is a self-assessment loop: the reward is validated only on the authors' own synthetic data, and the manuscript's own A.9 limitation notes that the method "requires researchers to process and implement model attention mechanisms more meticulously," yet the key implementation detail (the layer) is omitted.
  3. [Section A.7 vs. Section 3.2] The description of the SR-FLOW reward is inconsistent with the claim that it is a GRPO reasoning reward. Section 3.2 introduces MAX-Flow as an additional reward within GRPO, but Section A.7 states that "the reward function combines format scoring and max flow scoring (fixed weights 1.0 and 2.0)" and does not mention any answer-correctness term. If SR-FLOW training indeed omits a correctness reward, the model is being optimized without direct feedback on whether the final answer is correct, which would make the reported accuracy gains surprising and require explanation. If a correctness term is included elsewhere, the text must say so explicitly. As written, it is impossible to determine what objective SR-FLOW actually optimizes.
  4. [Table 2 vs. Table 3] The same base model is reported with conflicting numbers in the two main evaluation tables. R1-Distill-1.5B scores 84.9±0.3 on MATH500 in Table 2 but 80.33±1.78 in Table 3; OlympiadBench scores are 52.4±0.4 versus 44.49±1.91; Minerva scores are 30.5±1.0 versus 31.00±2.81. Both tables are labeled as Pass@1 accuracy, and the text does not explain any difference in sampling or evaluation protocol. Because Table 3 is used to claim that "SR-Flow outperforms SR-SFT across all benchmarks," the mismatch in baseline numbers makes the relative improvements in Table 3, and the aggregate conclusions built on them, impossible to verify from the manuscript as written.
  5. [Table 2; Section 5.1] The headline performance differences are within one standard deviation of the baselines, so the "near-SOTA at minimal cost" claim is stronger than the reported statistics support. SR-FLOW's Large Avg is 58.1±2.1, identical to DeepScaleR's 58.1±1.2, and SR-SFT already achieves 56.7±2.1; the gain from SR-SFT to SR-FLOW is +1.4 points on a standard deviation of about 2.1. The paper reports mean ± std but does not provide paired significance tests, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. Given the multi-seed evaluation, the authors could present a simple paired comparison (e.g., per-seed differences with a sign test or bootstrap interval) to substantiate the claim that the structured reward improves over the standard accuracy reward.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4; Eq. (4)] The text referring to the LCS reward says "Equation 3.2" twice; it should cite Eq. (4) and Eq. (5).
  2. [Appendix A.5] The second worked example uses a <conclusion> tag, but this tag is not in the 23-tag prompt list in Appendix A.2; please correct the example or the taxonomy.
  3. [Section 5.1 vs. Figure 6] The IISR description says 70 correctly reasoned examples are used, but the Figure 6 captions report sample sizes of 68 and 67; align these numbers.
  4. [Section A.7; Table 1] A.7 says training uses a batch size of 6 per device with gradient accumulation of 4, while Table 1's training details standardize the batch size to 128; please clarify whether the table is reporting a normalized count and how per-device batch sizes map to it.
  5. [Section A.7 vs. Section 3.1] The tag randomization in A.7 (retain the top 5 tags and randomly sample 0-5 additional tags) is not described in Section 3.1, which states that 23 tags are retained after frequency analysis; specify whether the randomization applies to SFT, RL, or both, and how it affects the 23-tag prompt.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are external benchmark measurements, and the MAX-Flow reward is checked against an independent interference-removal protocol rather than derived from its own target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than self-referential. It constructs a tagged SFT dataset (Section 3.1), defines MAX-Flow and LCS rewards from attention matrices and tag subsequences (Section 3.2), and then evaluates trained models on external benchmarks such as AIME, MATH500, Minerva, and OlympiadBench (Section 5.1, Table 2). No equation derives a target quantity from itself: the MAX-Flow quality metric Q in Eq. 3 is a function of attention edge capacities, and the claim that MAX-Flow evaluates reasoning steps well is checked by the IISR protocol, which measures Error Filtering Efficiency on injected interference steps (Appendix A.4, A.6) - an independent quantity from the reward itself. The LCS reward explicitly depends on correctness signals and consensus among completions, and its effect is again measured by external accuracy and token-length statistics. The validation of MAX-Flow on the authors' own synthetic IISR data is a self-assessment loop in the sense that the synthetic task is not an external benchmark, but the measured quantity (removal of injected irrelevant steps) is not the quantity being predicted, so this does not make the derivation circular. The unspecified 'certain layer' in Eq. 2 and the lack of a layer sweep are reproducibility and under-specification concerns, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorems; all references to prior work are standard external results such as Ford-Fulkerson max-flow. The headline results, including SR-FLOW's 58.1 Large Avg., are external pass@1 measurements and therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The method's improvements over the base model are empirical, so no mathematical derivation is hidden. However, the reward functions rely on several hand-set parameters (tau, top-25%, reward weights, tag count) and on domain assumptions about attention and tag semantics that are not independently validated. The paper also does not release the structured dataset or models.

free parameters (7)
  • Edge threshold tau = 0.05
    Edges with attention A_ij <= tau are excluded from the flow graph; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Top-25% Ktop fraction = 25%
    The Q reward uses the top 25% most important steps by DeltaF; the fraction is arbitrary.
  • Reward weights (format:max-flow) = 1.0 : 2.0
    A.7 sets these weights without ablation or explanation.
  • Retained tag count = 23
    Tags retained after removing low-frequency tags from DeepSeek-R1 671B; adequacy of the set is not tested.
  • SFT sample count = 500
    The 500 most challenging S1 problems were selected; no ablation on sample count.
  • GRPO step count = 250
    Training stopped at 250 steps; no convergence criterion or step sweep.
  • LCS length-suppression constants = 2 in denominator
    The ratio formula ratiok=ell/(2ell) uses arbitrary factors of 2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The step-to-step attention matrix from a single layer is a valid measure of reasoning-step importance.
    Section 3.2 computes A from 'a certain layer' and uses it as graph edge capacity; no causal or semantic validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Balanced reasoning steps (higher Q) are more effective for solving problems.
    Equation (3) rewards uniformity of step importance; no cognitive-science or empirical support is cited.
  • domain assumption The 23-tag taxonomy is sufficient and appropriate for structuring reasoning across STEM tasks.
    Tags are induced from DeepSeek-R1 outputs; no completeness or transfer evidence.
  • domain assumption LCS overlap of reasoning tags between correct completions indicates high-quality shared reasoning structure.
    Equation (4) rewards tag-subsequence consensus; assumes tag order carries semantic meaning.
  • standard math Max-flow/min-cut and standard LCS algorithms are correctly applied.
    Ford-Fulkerson and dynamic programming are standard; no implementation issues stated.
invented entities (2)
  • Reasoning step tag taxonomy (23 tags)
    purpose: Labels for SFT and the LCS reward
    Created by filtering DeepSeek-R1 671B's tag distribution; no external benchmark establishes that these tags are the right decomposition of reasoning.
  • Step-to-step attention matrix
    purpose: Input to the MAX-Flow reward and step-importance analyses
    A new attention-pooled quantity; no independent evidence connects it to reasoning correctness beyond the authors' synthetic IISR test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Large Language Models through Structured Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6HZ6KYM

@misc{pith2026250620241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Large Language Models through Structured Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6HZ6KYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20241}
}
read the original abstract

Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language processing and automated decision-making. However, these models still encounter difficulties when performing complex reasoning tasks involving logical deduction and systematic planning, primarily due to their reliance on implicit statistical relationships without structured knowledge representation.Inspired by cognitive science and neurosymbolic AI, we introduce a novel approach to enhance LLMs through explicit structured reasoning. First, we convert unstructured data into structured formats by explicitly annotating reasoning steps. We then employ this structured dataset to train LLMs through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). Additionally, we enhance the structured reasoning capabilities of LLMs using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), incorporating two innovative algorithms--MAX-Flow and Longest Common Subsequence (LCS)--which notably improve reasoning effectiveness and reduce computational complexity. Experimental results from fine-tuning a DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B model demonstrate concise reasoning, robust performance across various scenarios, and improved compatibility with optimization techniques, validating the efficacy of structured reasoning integration in LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) with Structured Reasoning (SR) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison across Global Steps: Pass@1 Performance (Left), Reasoning Steps (Middle), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance Comparison of 1.5B Models across Maximum New Tokens (Left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Layer-wise Analysis Using Step Matrix: Error Filtering Efficiency across Different Layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of Model Reasoning Patterns: Distribution of First Correct Answers (Left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: IISR Results: Error Filtering Efficiency (Precision) of different algorithms when removing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Token length distribution of LCS models under different training stages. The smoothed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the relative positions of each tag within the reasoning process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of Reasoning Path Transition Graph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of Algorithms for Error Filtering Efficiency Averaged Across Four Tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Using Max-flow Method for Filtering Steps during IISR Experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Impact of Truncated Completion Masking on Training Stability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dropping Experts, Recombining Neurons: Retraining-Free Pruning for Sparse Mixture-of-Experts LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DERN prunes SMoE LLMs by decomposing removed experts into neuron segments, reassigning the best-matching ones to kept experts, and clustering them into compact replacements, beating prior pruning baselines without retraining.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    DeepSeek-AI, D. Guo, D. Yang, et al. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025. ArXiv:2501.12948 [cs]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    OpenAI o1, 2024

    OpenAI. OpenAI o1, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning | Qwen, 2025

    QwQ. QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning | Qwen, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Roorda, C

    Bronkhorst, H., G. Roorda, C. Suhre, et al. Students’ use of formalisations for improved logical reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Forstmann, B. U., R. Ratcliff, E.-J. Wagenmakers. Sequential sampling models in cognitive neuroscience. Annual review of psychology, 67:641–666, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Evans, J. S. B. Dual-process theories. In The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning , pages 157–174. Routledge, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Miller, E. K., J. D. Cohen. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of neuroscience, 24(1):167–202, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Team, K., A. Du, B. Gao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Li, C., N. Liu, K. Yang. Adaptive group policy optimization: Towards stable training and token-efficient reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15952, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Arora, D., A. Zanette. Training language models to reason efficiently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04463, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Aggarwal, P., S. Welleck. L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Luo, H., L. Shen, H. He, et al. O1-pruner: Length-harmonizing fine-tuning for o1-like reasoning pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12570, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zhang, J

    Shen, Y ., J. Zhang, J. Huang, et al. Dast: Difficulty-adaptive slow-thinking for large reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04472, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Zhang, J

    Hou, B., Y . Zhang, J. Ji, et al. Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01296, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yang, J., K. Lin, X. Yu. Think when you need: Self-adaptive chain-of-thought learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03234, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jelinek, F., R. L. Mercer, L. R. Bahl, et al. Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 62(S1):S63–S63, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Cui, Y ., P. He, J. Zeng, et al. Stepwise perplexity-guided refinement for efficient chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Xia, H., Y . Li, C. T. Leong, et al. Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in llms, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kamfonas

    Alon, G., M. Kamfonas. Detecting language model attacks with perplexity, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Liu, T., Q. Guo, X. Hu, et al. Can language models learn to skip steps?, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Zhang, J., X. Wang, F. Mo, et al. Entropy-based exploration conduction for multi-step reasoning, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Kalai, A

    Jaech, A., A. Kalai, A. Lerer, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    OpenAI o3-mini System Card, 2025

    OpenAI. OpenAI o3-mini System Card, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Reinforce++: A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models

    Hu, J. Reinforce++: A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhang, R

    Yu, Q., Z. Zhang, R. Zhu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Tu, S., J. Lin, X. Tian, et al. Enhancing llm reasoning with iterative dpo: A comprehensive empirical investigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12854, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aghajohari, E

    Kazemnejad, A., M. Aghajohari, E. Portelance, et al. Vineppo: Unlocking rl potential for llm reasoning through refined credit assignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01679, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lin, Z., M. Lin, Y . Xie, et al. Cppo: Accelerating the training of group relative policy optimization-based reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22342, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Yue, Y ., Y . Yuan, Q. Yu, et al. Vapo: Efficient and reliable reinforcement learning for advanced reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05118, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    One framework to rule them all: Unifying rl-based and rl-free methods in rlhf

    Cai, X. One framework to rule them all: Unifying rl-based and rl-free methods in rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19523, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Shen, W., G. Liu, Z. Wu, et al. Exploring data scaling trends and effects in reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22230, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wen, L., Y . Cai, F. Xiao, et al. Light-r1: Curriculum sft, dpo and rl for long cot from scratch and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10460, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Roux, N. L., M. G. Bellemare, J. Lebensold, et al. Tapered off-policy reinforce: Stable and efficient reinforcement learning for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14286, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gao, J., S. Xu, W. Ye, et al. On designing effective rl reward at training time for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cui, G., L. Yuan, Z. Wang, et al. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01456, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ma, Y . J., W. Liang, G. Wang, et al. Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bhatnagar, V

    Hochlehnert, A., H. Bhatnagar, V . Udandarao, et al. A sober look at progress in language model reasoning: Pitfalls and paths to reproducibility, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Ford, L. R., D. R. Fulkerson. Maximal flow through a network. Canadian Journal of Mathematics , 8:399–404, 1956

    1956

  32. [40]

    Muennighoff, N., Z. Yang, W. Shi, et al. s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Luo, M., S. Tan, J. Wong, et al. Deepscaler: Surpassing o1-preview with a 1.5b model by scaling rl. https://pretty-radio-b75.notion.site/ DeepScaleR-Surpassing-O1-Preview-with-a-1-5B-Model-by-Scaling-RL-19681902c1468005bed8ca303013a4e2 ,

  34. [42]

    Gao, B., F. Song, Z. Yang, et al. Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Jiang, Y

    Song, H., J. Jiang, Y . Min, et al. R1-searcher: Stimulating the search capability of llm from zero via reinforcement learning. 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Burns, S

    Hendrycks, D., C. Burns, S. Kadavath, et al. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    He, C., R. Luo, Y . Bai, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad- level bilingual multimodal scientific problems, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Rein, D., B. L. Hou, A. C. Stickland, et al. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Zhong, W., R. Cui, Y . Guo, et al. Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Burns, S

    Hendrycks, D., C. Burns, S. Basart, et al. Measuring massive multitask language understanding, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    DeepSeek-AI, D. Guo, D. Yang, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Zhang, B

    Yang, A., B. Zhang, B. Hui, et al. Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement, 2024. 11

    2024

  43. [51]

    Liu, Z., C. Chen, W. Li, et al. There may not be aha moment in r1-zero-like training — a pilot study. https://oatllm.notion.site/oat-zero, 2025. Notion Blog

    2025

  44. [52]

    Zheng, Z

    Song, M., M. Zheng, Z. Li, et al. Fastcurl: Curriculum reinforcement learning with progressive context extension for efficient training r1-like reasoning models, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    Min, Y ., Z. Chen, J. Jiang, et al. Imitate, explore, and self-improve: A reproduction report on slow-thinking reasoning systems, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Dang, Q.-A., C. Ngo. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in small llms: What works and what doesn’t, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Aggarwal, P., S. Welleck. L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    S1 Structured 500 Completions

    Shao, Z., P. Wang, Q. Zhu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models, 2024. 12 A Appendix A.1 Part of Figures and Tables For better layout and presentation, we have placed some figures and tables in a unified location in the Appe...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.