Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 120 references

GPO: Learning from Critical Steps to Improve LLM Reasoning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reset LLM training at the most critical reasoning step and every optimizer improves.

desk verdict A well-executed empirical plug-in for reasoning fine-tuning whose mechanism is plausible but whose headline attribution to step selection isn't yet isolated from extra compute. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.16456 v3 pith:YKFGCAL3 submitted 2025-09-19 cs.AI

Jiahao Yu , Zelei Cheng , Xian Wu , Xinyu Xing This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords LLMreasoningcriticalstepidentificationadvantageestimationMonteCarlorolloutspolicyoptimizationpreferencefine-tuningmulti-step
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

GPO (Guided Pivotal Optimization) claims that LLM reasoning improves most when training is focused on the single intermediate step where a trajectory most often derails, rather than treating whole trajectories uniformly. The method estimates the advantage of each reasoning step by Monte Carlo rollouts, picks the step with the highest advantage, resets the policy there, and samples a fresh continuation to train on. The paper argues this is a general plug-in: wrapping PPO, DPO, KTO, SimPO, or ORPO with GPO improved test accuracy on all seven benchmarks, and an ablation against random resetting shows the step-selection mechanism itself, not the reset, drives the gain. A theoretical analysis is offered for both online and offline settings, connecting the reset sampling to advantage-weighted RL and to a regret bound that tightens as selection concentrates on the highest-advantage step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the critical step: the reasoning step with maximal estimated advantage $A^{\pi}(x, y_{0:i-1}; y_i)$, defined as the change in $Q$-value when taking that step under the current policy. GPO locates it by Monte Carlo estimation—four rollouts per step in the main runs—then resets the trajectory to that step and samples a continuation, so the training distribution becomes concentrated on pivotal decisions. In the idealized theory, this is formalized as sampling the critical step with probability proportional to $e^{\gamma A}$, with the max-advantage rule as the $\gamma \to \infty$ limit; the online regret bound is argued to tighten as $\gamma$ grows because the step-wise concentrability ratio shrinks. For offline preference optimization, the same construction shows that step-wise DPO with advantage-based preferences is equivalent to advantage-weighted RL, reweighting each step's log-likelihood by $\exp(A/\beta)$.

What would settle it

Measure the density ratio $w(s,a,h,\gamma)=d^{\pi^*}_h(s,a)/d^{\rho}_h(s,a)$ on a real reasoning dataset across increasing $\gamma$: if the supremum over states and actions does not decrease, the claimed tightening of the regret bound fails. A simpler behavioural test: on a new benchmark, run GPO with the advantage-max step versus a uniformly random reset step; if the two accuracies converge, the central mechanism is not critical-step selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that locating the reasoning step with the highest estimated advantage and restarting generation from that point produces training data that improves the policy more than using the original trajectory or a randomly reset one. Concretely, GPO wraps five optimization algorithms—PPO, DPO, KTO, SimPO, and ORPO—and reports higher test accuracy for every wrapper on all seven datasets, with examples such as MATH rising from 79.6 to 87.8 for GPO-PPO and from 82.4 to 86.8 for GPO-DPO. The random-reset ablation on MATH yields 79.9 percent versus 87.9 percent for GPO, which the authors take as evidence that the critical-step selection, not the reset operation itself, is the source of improvement. A user study reports that between 44 and 88 percent of human participants chose the GPO-identified step as the most critical, providing qualitative support for the method's core mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The regret bound assumes the policy updates by exact exponential weights over actions and that the policy and visitation distributions are log-linear in the optimal advantage with ordered coefficients; the implemented algorithms use clipped PPO and DPO-style losses, so the theory's support for max-advantage selection depends on structural assumptions that are not verified in the experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any trajectory-level optimizer for LLM reasoning can be wrapped with GPO without changing its loss, and the paper reports gains on all seven tested benchmarks and all five optimizers.
  • The random-reset ablation implies that merely increasing trajectory diversity by resetting is not enough; the advantage-based choice of reset point is what produces the improvement.
  • Better advantage estimates (more Monte Carlo samples) improve GPO up to a saturation point around twelve simulations, so the method's gains track the quality of step-value estimation.
  • Under the theory, concentrating the reset distribution toward the highest-advantage step (larger $\gamma$) should tighten the online regret bound, making critical-step selection principled rather than heuristic.
  • In the offline setting, advantage-based preference pairs at individual steps are equivalent to advantage-weighted RL, so GPO-style data construction can be understood as reweighting each step's log-likelihood by $\exp(A/\beta)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If GPO's mechanism holds, the same reset-at-pivot idea could transfer to program repair or tool-use trajectories, where a 'step' is a function call or code edit rather than a reasoning line; the advantage estimator would need to handle sparse rewards at those boundaries.
  • The observed agreement between GPO-identified steps and human choices hints that the advantage signal might serve as an automated explainability map for reasoning failures, independent of its training benefit.
  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is replacing the Monte Carlo advantage estimator with a learned value model to cut the reported 1.8x to 1.9x overhead without necessarily losing the improvement.
  • Because the theory's concentrability argument is not verified empirically, one could check whether the step-wise density ratio actually shrinks with $\gamma$ in a real policy class; that check would separate the theoretical mechanism from the empirical recipe.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GPO (Guided Pivotal Optimization), a fine-tuning strategy for LLM reasoning that identifies a "critical step" in a sampled reasoning trajectory via Monte Carlo estimates of the advantage function, resets the policy to that step, samples a continuation, and trains on the resulting trajectory or preference pair. The method is presented as a general plug-in applicable to online (PPO) and offline (DPO, KTO, SimPO, ORPO) optimizers, with experiments on seven reasoning benchmarks and a theoretical regret analysis in an online setting plus an advantage-weighted interpretation of step-wise DPO. The main empirical claim is that GPO improves accuracy over each baseline on all datasets, and an ablation against random reset suggests the advantage-based selection mechanism is responsible for the gain.

Significance. If the central claim holds, GPO is a simple and general recipe for improving LLM reasoning by focusing learning on pivotal steps, with broad applicability across common RL and preference-optimization algorithms. The paper includes several strengths: a clear algorithm, code and data release, experiments across 7 datasets and 5 optimizers, a random-reset ablation, a user study, and an attempt at theoretical grounding. However, the significance is conditional on resolving a key confound: the reported overhead of roughly 1.8-1.9x extra rollouts means the baselines are not compute-matched, so the observed gains may stem from additional inference/data rather than from identifying critical steps. The theoretical section also analyzes an exponential-weights update that is not the loss used in the experiments, further limiting the current support for the mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, Algorithm 1, §8] The central attribution claim—that advantage-based step selection, not the extra rollouts used to compute it, drives the gains—is not tested under a compute-matched control. Algorithm 1 runs 4 MC rollouts per step to estimate advantages and then a reset rollout, and §8 reports roughly 1.9x PPO training time and 1.8x offline data-preparation overhead; the Figure 2 random-reset baseline (Satori) performs no MC estimation and therefore consumes substantially less inference budget. Because §6.3 shows that increasing the number of MC rollouts improves performance, a random-reset baseline given the same total rollout budget (e.g., 4 extra random resets per trajectory, or an equivalent data-volume multiplier) is necessary to rule out the explanation that GPO's gains come from additional data or compute rather than from the selection mechanism. Without this control, the headline mechanism and the random-reset superiority claim (87.9 vs 79.9 on MATH) are not established.
  2. [§5, Appendix C.1, Eq. (8)] The theoretical analysis does not cover the algorithms used in the experiments. The regret bound is derived for the closed-form exponential-weights update π^{t+1}(a|s) ∝ π^t(a|s) exp(η Q-hat^{π_t}(s,a)) (Eq. 8 in Appendix C.1), whereas the experiments optimize PPO's clipped surrogate and DPO/KTO/SimPO/ORPO losses, which are not exponential-weights updates. The claim that increasing γ tightens the bound relies on structural assumptions stated in §C.1—d^{π_t}_h(s,a) ∝ exp(β_1 A^{π*}(s,a)), π^{t+1}(a|s) ∝ exp(β_2 A^{π*}(s,a)) with β_1 < β_2, and the supremum density ratio occurring at the argmax-advantage action—none of which are proved for LLM policies. In fact, the derivative computation in Eq. (15) is negative only at a* = argmax_a A^{π*}(s,a), while w_max(γ) is a supremum over all state-action pairs, so the argument does not show that the sup decreases with γ. The paper should either state these as explicit assumptions with justification or temper the theoretical claims to match the implemented losses.
  3. [Table 1, §6.1] The main empirical claim ("consistently leads to improved test accuracy") is reported without error bars or measures of uncertainty. AIME-2024 and AIME-2025 test sets have 30 problems, so differences such as 23.33 vs 20.00 correspond to a single question and are within binomial noise; the reported averages are over only 3 seeds. Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals for Table 1 and, for claims of "significant" gains, provide significance tests or use more cautious wording.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6] The text contains small typos such as "meibitasks" in the baseline-methods paragraph and an extra parenthesis in Eq. (2); these should be corrected.
  2. [§7, Appendix F] The user study is based on only five hand-selected problems and a convenience sample of college students, so the conclusion of "strong alignment" is overstated; the paper should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly.
  3. [§7, Appendix F] The paper states in the checklist that compensation details are provided in Appendix F, but Appendix F does not describe participant compensation; this inconsistency should be fixed.
  4. [Figure 3] The scaling figure does not show error bars, making it difficult to assess whether the differences across MC sample counts and model sizes are meaningful given the stated 3-run averages.
  5. [§8] The BBEH long-context result is reported only as a single accuracy number without standard deviation or training details beyond a short appendix; adding variability and a compute comparison would strengthen this scalability claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The empirical comparisons are externally benchmarked and not circular; the only mild circularity is Theorem 5.3 restating the DPO/advantage-weighted equivalence from its own advantage-defined preferences.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, Theorem 5.3; Appendix C.2, Eq. 18]
    "we consider preference pairs of the form (x,[y_{0:i−1}, y_i^+],[y_{0:i−1}, y_i^-]), where both continuations are sampled from the π_ref : y_i^+ ∼ π_ref(·|x,y_{0:i−1}), y_i^- ∼ π_ref(·|x,y_{0:i−1}), and the preference is determined based on the advantage estimates A^{π_ref}(x,y_{0:i−1};·), Combined with Eqn. 16, this yields the following equation: π_i(y_i|x,y_{0:i−1}) ∝ π_ref(y_i|x,y_{0:i−1})·exp(A^{π_ref}(x,y_{0:i−1};y_i)/β). (18)"

    The theorem's conclusion, Eq. 4, is the log-odds form of Eq. 18: after moving π_ref to the left, log(π_i/π_ref) = A/β + const, which is exactly the advantage-weighted log-likelihood objective in Eq. 4. Eq. 18 is obtained by substituting the advantage directly as the reward in Eq. 16, so the per-step DPO optimum equals advantage-weighted RL by construction. The paper also credits this equivalence to prior work [21]; the theorem is a known restatement rather than an independent derivation. The main empirical claims are not built on this theorem, so this is a mild, non-load-bearing circularity.

full rationale

The core empirical result—GPO improves PPO, DPO, KTO, SimPO, and ORPO on seven benchmarks—is evaluated against external baselines on held-out test sets, and the mechanism claim is tested by a random-reset ablation in Figure 2. The advantage signal comes from Monte-Carlo rollouts compared with gold answers, not from the test predictions, so the main comparison is not circular. The only exhibitable reduction is Theorem 5.3, where per-step DPO preferences are defined via the advantage and the conclusion is the corresponding advantage-weighted objective; this is a known equivalence cited to [21] and is a restatement rather than an independent derivation. The compute-confound issue acknowledged in Section 8 (1.9x PPO training time and 1.8x offline data preparation overhead, with no compute-matched random-reset control) is a validity threat to the attribution claim, but it is not a circularity: extra rollouts are not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Similarly, Theorem 5.2's reliance on the structural assumptions in Appendix C.1 is an assumption-mismatch risk, not a circular step. Score 2 reflects one mild definitional/known-result step while the central empirical claim remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

GPO's empirical claim rests on a small number of hand-chosen algorithmic constants: 4 MC rollouts for advantage estimation (performance still rising at K=8-12 per Figure 3), an 8-sample question filtering rule, and step segmentation parameters (30-word minimum, 10-15 step caps). None of these is fitted to the test sets, but they shape the data distribution and the quality of the critical-step signal. The theoretical claims rest on standard RL machinery (performance difference lemma, concentration bounds, DPO/BT equivalence) plus two ad hoc assumptions specific to this paper: the exponential-weights closed-form update, which the practical PPO/DPO losses do not implement, and the exact exponential-in-advantage forms of the occupancies and policies used to prove gamma-monotonicity. No new physical or latent entities are introduced; the 'critical step' is an operational construct defined through the estimated advantage and validated by ablation and a user study.

free parameters (4)
  • MC simulation count K = 4
    Number of Monte Carlo rollouts per step used to estimate Q and the advantage. Section 6.3 shows performance still rising from K=4 to K=12, so the main results use a suboptimal value. Selected by hand.
  • Question filtering threshold = 8 samples; exclude all-correct and all-incorrect
    Appendix E.2: questions solved correctly in all 8 attempts or in none are removed from training; this curates difficulty and is applied to baselines and GPO alike, but shapes the trained distribution.
  • Step grouping parameters = min 30 words per step; max 10 steps (PPO), 15 steps (offline)
    Appendix E.2: ad hoc segmentation rules that determine what counts as a step, and hence what the advantage is computed over.
  • Advantage sampling temperature gamma = tends to infinity (limit)
    Section 5.1: theory analyzes sampling proportional to e^{gamma*A}; the implemented algorithm is treated as the gamma-to-infinity limit, but the limit of the regret bound is not established.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Bounded Q-values: 0 <= Q^{pi_t}_h(s,a) <= r_max for the function class F (Assumption 5.1).
    Reasonable for binary/reward-at-the-end reasoning tasks, but restricts the function class and is not checked.
  • domain assumption Deterministic transitions with zero intermediate rewards justify A(s_i,a_i) = Q(s_i,a_i) - Q(s_{i-1},a_{i-1}) (footnote 4).
    Holds by construction of the step-level MDP: reward is only the final-answer comparison, and next state is the concatenated prefix.
  • ad hoc to paper Policy updates take the closed form pi^{t+1}(a|s) proportional to pi^t(a|s) exp(eta * Qhat^{pi_t}(s,a)) (Eq. 8 in Appendix C.1).
    This is the exponential-weights / softmax update used to derive the regret bound; PPO and DPO, the algorithms actually run, do not update policies in this closed form. The theory therefore does not cover the implemented optimizers.
  • ad hoc to paper State-action occupancies and policies are exactly exponential in A^{pi*}: d^{pi_t}_h(s,a) proportional to exp(beta_1 * A^{pi*}(s,a)) and pi^{t+1}(a|s) proportional to exp(beta_2 * A^{pi*}(s,a)) with beta_1 < beta_2 (Appendix C.1).
    This assumption guarantees the derivative of log w_max(gamma) is negative at the argmax-advantage action; without it the claim that larger gamma tightens the regret bound is unproven. It is stated as 'reasonable' without evidence.
  • standard math Monte Carlo rollouts give unbiased estimates of the Q function (Lemma 2, cited from Song et al. [69]).
    Standard RL sample-based estimation; a concentration bound is borrowed from the literature.
  • standard math BT model for preference data and the DPO-optimal-policy closed form (Eq. 16) used in the proof of Theorem 5.3.
    Standard preference learning theory, the same machinery as DPO [9] and Setlur et al. [21].
  • ad hoc to paper The conceptual per-step preference variant of Procedure-II (Theorem 5.3) is representative of the actual full-trajectory DPO used in experiments.
    Algorithm 1 Procedure-II trains on full-trajectory pairs continuing from the critical step; the theorem analyzes per-step pairs (x, [y_{0:i-1}, y+_i], [y_{0:i-1}, y-_i]). The gap is acknowledged only as 'conceptual'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GPO: Learning from Critical Steps to Improve LLM Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKFGCAL3

@misc{pith2026250916456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GPO: Learning from Critical Steps to Improve LLM Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKFGCAL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.16456}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in various domains, showing impressive potential on different tasks. Recently, reasoning LLMs have been proposed to improve the \textit{reasoning} or \textit{thinking} capabilities of LLMs to solve complex problems. Despite the promising results of reasoning LLMs, enhancing the multi-step reasoning capabilities of LLMs still remains a significant challenge. While existing optimization methods have advanced the LLM reasoning capabilities, they often treat reasoning trajectories as a whole, without considering the underlying critical steps within the trajectory. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{G}uided \textbf{P}ivotal \textbf{O}ptimization (GPO), a novel fine-tuning strategy that dives into the reasoning process to enable more effective improvements. GPO first identifies the `critical step' within a reasoning trajectory - a point that the model must carefully proceed to succeed at the problem. We locate the critical step by estimating the advantage function. GPO then resets the policy to the critical step, samples the new rollout and prioritizes the learning process on those rollouts. This focus allows the model to learn more effectively from pivotal moments within the reasoning process to improve the reasoning performance. We demonstrate that GPO is a general strategy that can be integrated with various optimization methods to improve reasoning performance. Besides theoretical analysis, our experiments across challenging reasoning benchmarks show that GPO can consistently and significantly enhance the performance of existing optimization methods, showcasing its effectiveness and generalizability in improving LLM reasoning by concentrating on pivotal moments within the generation process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our method. Given an initial trajectory generated by the policy π for a reasoning task, GPO segments the trajectory into steps. It then identifies the most critical step via the MC simulation and resets the policy to the critical step to generate a new trajectory. The new trajectory is then added to the dataset or online buffer. transitions. Specifically, we treat the prefix (x, y0, . . . , yh−1) as the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ablation study results on BBH and MATH. We compare the performance of the standard GPO method and Satori’s strategy that randomly identifies the critical step in the trajectory. Each bar represents the average performance of 3 runs, with error bars indicating the standard deviation. 6.1 Main Results The results are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scaling behavior of GPO. Performance impact of varying number of MC samples (left) and applying GPO across different model sizes (right) on MATH using DPO/KTO. mance gains appear to saturate beyond 12 simulation samples, potentially because the estimation of the advantage function converges. It suggests that the overhead of GPO can be reduced by achieving a balance between the number of simulation samples and the pe… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D. Manning. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. InConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Q*: Improving multi-step reasoning for llms with deliberative planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14283, 2024

    Chaojie Wang, Yanchen Deng, Zhiyi Lyu, Liang Zeng, Jujie He, Shuicheng Yan, and Bo An. Q*: Improving multi-step reasoning for llms with deliberative planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14283, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Planning in natural language improves llm search for code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03733, 2024

    Evan Wang, Federico Cassano, Catherine Wu, Yunfeng Bai, Will Song, Vaskar Nath, Ziwen Han, Sean Hendryx, Summer Yue, and Hugh Zhang. Planning in natural language improves llm search for code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03733, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Satori: Reinforcement learning with chain-of-action-thought enhances llm reasoning via autoregressive search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02508, 2025

    Maohao Shen, Guangtao Zeng, Zhenting Qi, Zhang-Wei Hong, Zhenfang Chen, Wei Lu, Gregory Wornell, Subhro Das, David Cox, and Chuang Gan. Satori: Reinforcement learning with chain-of-action-thought enhances llm reasoning via autoregressive search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02508, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Sergey Levine, Pieter Abbeel, Michael Jordan, and Philipp Moritz. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI Confer...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. 11

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653, 2023

    Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Unleashing reasoning capability of llms via scalable question synthesis from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18693, 2024

    Yuyang Ding, Xinyu Shi, Xiaobo Liang, Juntao Li, Qiaoming Zhu, and Min Zhang. Unleashing reasoning capability of llms via scalable question synthesis from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18693, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03492, 2025

    Zhihui Xie, Liyu Chen, Weichao Mao, Jingjing Xu, Lingpeng Kong, et al. Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03492, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Rl on incorrect synthetic data scales the efficiency of llm math reasoning by eight-fold.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    Amrith Setlur, Saurabh Garg, Xinyang Geng, Naman Garg, Virginia Smith, and Aviral Kumar. Rl on incorrect synthetic data scales the efficiency of llm math reasoning by eight-fold.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Distillm: Towards streamlined distillation for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03898, 2024

    Jongwoo Ko, Sungnyun Kim, Tianyi Chen, and Se-Young Yun. Distillm: Towards streamlined distillation for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03898, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Knowledge diffusion for distillation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    Tao Huang, Yuan Zhang, Mingkai Zheng, Shan You, Fei Wang, Chen Qian, and Chang Xu. Knowledge diffusion for distillation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lifting the curse of capacity gap in distilling large language models

    Chen Zhang, Yang Yang, Jiahao Liu, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, Benyou Wang, and Dawei Song. Lifting the curse of capacity gap in distilling large language models

  17. [25]

    Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08543, 2023

    Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang. Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08543, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Everything you need to know about knowledge distillation, 2025

    Alyona Vert. Everything you need to know about knowledge distillation, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-04

    2025

  19. [27]

    Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024

    Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Reft: Reasoning with reinforced fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08967, 3, 2024

    Trung Quoc Luong, Xinbo Zhang, Zhanming Jie, Peng Sun, Xiaoran Jin, and Hang Li. Reft: Reasoning with reinforced fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08967, 3, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Learning math reasoning from self-sampled correct and partially-correct solutions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14318, 2022

    Ansong Ni, Jeevana Priya Inala, Chenglong Wang, Oleksandr Polozov, Christopher Meek, Dragomir Radev, and Jianfeng Gao. Learning math reasoning from self-sampled correct and partially-correct solutions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14318, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585, 2023

    Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Xavier Garcia, Peter J Liu, James Harrison, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, et al. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chain of preference optimization: Improving chain-of-thought reasoning in llms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    Xuan Zhang, Chao Du, Tianyu Pang, Qian Liu, Wei Gao, and Min Lin. Chain of preference optimization: Improving chain-of-thought reasoning in llms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Exploring self-supervised logic-enhanced training for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13718, 2023

    Fangkai Jiao, Zhiyang Teng, Bosheng Ding, Zhengyuan Liu, Nancy F Chen, and Shafiq Joty. Exploring self-supervised logic-enhanced training for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13718, 2023. 12

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vineppo: Unlocking rl potential for llm reasoning through refined credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01679, 2024

    Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Milad Aghajohari, Eva Portelance, Alessandro Sordoni, Siva Reddy, Aaron Courville, and Nicolas Le Roux. Vineppo: Unlocking rl potential for llm reasoning through refined credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01679, 2024

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495, 2024

    Jonathan D Chang, Wenhao Zhan, Owen Oertell, Kianté Brantley, Dipendra Misra, Jason D Lee, and Wen Sun. Dataset reset policy optimization for rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08495, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    First return, entropy-eliciting explore

    Tianyu Zheng, Tianshun Xing, Qingshui Gu, Taoran Liang, Xingwei Qu, Xin Zhou, Yizhi Li, Zhoufutu Wen, Chenghua Lin, Wenhao Huang, et al. First return, entropy-eliciting explore. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07017, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Edge: Explaining deep reinforcement learning policies.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    Wenbo Guo, Xian Wu, Usmann Khan, and Xinyu Xing. Edge: Explaining deep reinforcement learning policies.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 7375–7392, 2023

    Jiahao Yu, Wenbo Guo, Qi Qin, Gang Wang, Ting Wang, and Xinyu Xing.{AIRS}: Expla- nation for deep reinforcement learning based security applications. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 7375–7392, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Rice: Breaking through the training bottlenecks of reinforcement learning with explanation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03064, 2024

    Zelei Cheng, Xian Wu, Jiahao Yu, Sabrina Yang, Gang Wang, and Xinyu Xing. Rice: Breaking through the training bottlenecks of reinforcement learning with explanation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03064, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Statemask: Explaining deep reinforcement learning through state mask.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    Zelei Cheng, Xian Wu, Jiahao Yu, Wenhai Sun, Wenbo Guo, and Xinyu Xing. Statemask: Explaining deep reinforcement learning through state mask.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Lazy-mdps: Towards inter- pretable reinforcement learning by learning when to act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08542, 2022

    Alexis Jacq, Johan Ferret, Olivier Pietquin, and Matthieu Geist. Lazy-mdps: Towards inter- pretable reinforcement learning by learning when to act.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08542, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Establishing appropriate trust via critical states

    Sandy H Huang, Kush Bhatia, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca D Dragan. Establishing appropriate trust via critical states. In2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE

  36. [44]

    Highlights: Summarizing agent behavior to people

    Dan Amir and Ofra Amir. Highlights: Summarizing agent behavior to people. InProceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pages 1168–1176, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Gemma 3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ramé, Morgane Rivière, et al. Gemma 3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

    Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, and Douwe Kiela. Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 1952

    1952

  42. [50]

    MIT press Cambridge, 1998

    Richard S Sutton, Andrew G Barto, et al.Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press Cambridge, 1998

    1998

  43. [51]

    Adversarial policy optimization for offline preference-based reinforcement learning

    Hyungkyu Kang and Min-hwan Oh. Adversarial policy optimization for offline preference-based reinforcement learning. InProc. of ICLR, 2025. 13

    2025

  44. [52]

    Step- dpo: Step-wise preference optimization for long-chain reasoning of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18629, 2024

    Xin Lai, Zhuotao Tian, Yukang Chen, Senqiao Yang, Xiangru Peng, and Jiaya Jia. Step- dpo: Step-wise preference optimization for long-chain reasoning of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18629, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Discriminator-weighted offline imitation learning from suboptimal demonstrations

    Haoran Xu, Xianyuan Zhan, Honglei Yin, and Huiling Qin. Discriminator-weighted offline imitation learning from suboptimal demonstrations. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Harness- ing mixed offline reinforcement learning datasets via trajectory weighting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13085, 2023

    Zhang-Wei Hong, Pulkit Agrawal, Rémi Tachet des Combes, and Romain Laroche. Harness- ing mixed offline reinforcement learning datasets via trajectory weighting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13085, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Open-reasoner-zero: An open source approach to scaling up reinforcement learning on the base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24290, 2025

    Jingcheng Hu, Yinmin Zhang, Qi Han, Daxin Jiang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Open-reasoner-zero: An open source approach to scaling up reinforcement learning on the base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24290, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Aime 2024 problem set

    AIME. Aime 2024 problem set. https://huggingface.co/datasets/Maxwell-Jia/ AIME_2024, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Aime 2025 problem set

    AIME. Aime 2025 problem set. https://huggingface.co/datasets/opencompass/ AIME2025, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, , and Jason Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding.Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding.Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. InThe Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Pro...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Numinamath 7b tir, 2024

    Edward Beeching, Shengyi Costa Huang, Albert Jiang, Jia Li, Benjamin Lipkin, Zihan Qina, Kashif Rasul, Ziju Shen, Roman Soletskyi, and Lewis Tunstall. Numinamath 7b tir, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Numinamath: The largest public dataset in ai4maths with 860k pairs of competition math problems and solutions.Hugging Face repository, 2024

    Jia Li, Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, Ben Lipkin, Roman Soletskyi, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, Longhui Yu, Albert Q Jiang, Ziju Shen, et al. Numinamath: The largest public dataset in ai4maths with 860k pairs of competition math problems and solutions.Hugging Face repository, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Scaling relationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01825, 2023

    Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chengpeng Li, Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Chuanqi Tan, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Scaling relationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01825, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Big-bench extra hard.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19187, 2025

    Mehran Kazemi, Bahare Fatemi, Hritik Bansal, John Palowitch, Chrysovalantis Anastasiou, Sanket Vaibhav Mehta, Lalit K Jain, Virginia Aglietti, Disha Jindal, Peter Chen, et al. Big-bench extra hard.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19187, 2025. 14

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06559, 2024

    Chujie Zheng, Zhenru Zhang, Beichen Zhang, Runji Lin, Keming Lu, Bowen Yu, Dayiheng Liu, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06559, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Hybrid RL: Using both offline and online data can make RL efficient

    Yuda Song, Yifei Zhou, Ayush Sekhari, Drew Bagnell, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Wen Sun. Hybrid RL: Using both offline and online data can make RL efficient. InProc. of ICLR, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Active advantage-aligned online reinforcement learning with offline data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07937, 2025

    Xuefeng Liu, Hung TC Le, Siyu Chen, Rick Stevens, Zhuoran Yang, Matthew R Walter, and Yuxin Chen. Active advantage-aligned online reinforcement learning with offline data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07937, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07691, 2024

    Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, and James Thorne. Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07691, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Limitations

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, Zheyan Luo, Zhangchi Feng, and Yongqiang Ma. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System ...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

    2025

  66. [74]

    Let me break this down step by step

    Okay, so I need to figure out the date 24 hours after September 1st, 2021. Let me break this down step by step

    2021

  67. [75]

    Wait, does that mean today is September 8th, 2021? Because a week is seven days, so adding seven days to September 1st would land on September 8th

    First, the question says it was September 1st, 2021, a week ago. Wait, does that mean today is September 8th, 2021? Because a week is seven days, so adding seven days to September 1st would land on September 8th. But the question is asking about 24 hours after September 1st, n...

    2021

  68. [76]

    It says, ’It was Sept

    Wait, no, the question is straightforward. It says, ’It was Sept. 1st, 2021 a week ago. What is the date 24 hours later in MM/DD/YYYY?" So, regardless of today’s date, I just need to find the date that is exactly 24 hours after September 1st, 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    So, 24 hours later would be the next day, September 1st, plus one day is September 2nd,

  70. [79]

    That’s way too far in the future

    (A) 03/09/2022-That’s March 9th, 2022. That’s way too far in the future. 30

    2022

  71. [80]

    That’s nine days later, not just one

    (B) 09/10/2021-September 10th, 2021. That’s nine days later, not just one

    2021

  72. [81]

    That’s the day before September 1st, so that’s a day earlier, not later

    (C) 08/31/2021-August 31st, 2021. That’s the day before September 1st, so that’s a day earlier, not later

    2021

  73. [82]

    Again, that’s eight days later

    (D) 09/09/2021-September 9th, 2021. Again, that’s eight days later

    2021

  74. [83]

    That’s exactly one day after September 1st

    (E) 09/02/2021-September 2nd, 2021. That’s exactly one day after September 1st

    2021

  75. [84]

    That’s 16 days later

    (F) 09/17/2021-September 17th, 2021. That’s 16 days later

    2021

  76. [85]

    I think I got it right

    So, the correct answer should be option (E), which is 09/02/2021. I think I got it right. Just adding one day to September 1st gives September 2nd

    2021

  77. [86]

    Participant task:There are several steps listed; please select which step you prefer that is more critical to the LLM’s failure

    The date 24 hours after September 1st, 2021 is September 2nd, 2021, which corresponds to option (E). Participant task:There are several steps listed; please select which step you prefer that is more critical to the LLM’s failure. • Step 2 • Step 3 • Step 5 • Step 11 Results fo...

    2021

  78. [87]

    Let me break this down step by step

    Okay, so I’m trying to figure out whether Drew ordering coffee on Tuesday caused the coffee shop to make a profit that day. Let me break this down step by step

  79. [88]

    So, the key here is that only one order is needed for a profit

    First, the coffee shop makes a profit if at least one person orders coffee. So, the key here is that only one order is needed for a profit. Now, on this particular Tuesday, Drew, Kylie, Oliver, and Jen all ordered coffee. That means there were four orders that day

  80. [89]

    Did Drew’s action cause the profit? Well, since the shop only needs one order to make a profit, Drew’s order alone would have been sufficient

    The question is specifically about Drew’s order. Did Drew’s action cause the profit? Well, since the shop only needs one order to make a profit, Drew’s order alone would have been sufficient. But in this case, there were three other people who also ordered coffee. So, even if ...

  81. [90]

    For Drew’s order to be a cause, it should be necessary for the outcome

    This makes me think about the concept of causation. For Drew’s order to be a cause, it should be necessary for the outcome. But since the outcome (profit) would have happened regardless of Drew’s order, his action isn’t the necessary cause. It’s more like a contributing factor...

  82. [91]

    So, while his order contributed, it wasn’t the cause in the sense that it was required for the profit

    In this case, Drew’s order is sufficient on its own, but it’s not necessary because others also ordered. So, while his order contributed, it wasn’t the cause in the sense that it was required for the profit

  83. [92]

    If the shop still made a profit because of the others, then Drew’s order wasn’t the cause

    Another angle is to think about what would happen if Drew didn’t order. If the shop still made a profit because of the others, then Drew’s order wasn’t the cause. It’s like saying if you have multiple people contributing to an event, each one isn’t the sole cause unless their ...

  84. [93]

    Therefore, the answer should be no

    So, putting it all together, Drew’s order wasn’t the cause because the profit would have occurred without him. Therefore, the answer should be no

  85. [94]

    Therefore, Drew’s action wasn’t the cause

    The coffee shop made a profit because at least one person ordered coffee, but since others also ordered, Drew’s order wasn’t necessary for the profit. Therefore, Drew’s action wasn’t the cause. Participant task:There are several steps listed; please select which step you prefe...

  86. [95]

    Let me list them out one by one to make sure I don’t miss anything

    Okay, so I need to figure out how many objects the person has. Let me list them out one by one to make sure I don’t miss anything

  87. [96]

    That’s one object

    First, they mention a microwave. That’s one object. Then there’s a lamp, so that’s two

  88. [97]

    Wait, four cars would count as four separate objects, right? So that adds four to the total

    Next, they have four cars. Wait, four cars would count as four separate objects, right? So that adds four to the total

  89. [98]

    Then a toaster, that’s six

    After that, there’s a stove, which is another object, making it five so far. Then a toaster, that’s six. Finally, a bed, which brings the total to seven

  90. [99]

    Microwave (1), lamp (2), four cars (4), stove (5), toaster (6), bed (7)

    Let me double-check to make sure I didn’t skip any. Microwave (1), lamp (2), four cars (4), stove (5), toaster (6), bed (7). Yep, that adds up to seven objects in total

  91. [100]

    Counting each item individually, the total number of objects is 7

    The person has a microwave, a lamp, four cars, a stove, a toaster, and a bed. Counting each item individually, the total number of objects is 7. Participant task:There are several steps listed; please select which step you prefer that is more critical to the LLM’s failure. • S...

  92. [101]

    Next, I’ll calculate the total driving time by dividing the total distance by his average speed

    First, I need to determine how long it will take Jeremy to drive 600 miles at an average speed of 50 miles per hour. Next, I’ll calculate the total driving time by dividing the total distance by his average speed

  93. [102]

    Since he takes a 15-minute break every two hours of driving, I’ll divide the total driving time by 2 to find the number of rest stops

    Then, I’ll figure out how many rest stops he’ll need. Since he takes a 15-minute break every two hours of driving, I’ll divide the total driving time by 2 to find the number of rest stops. After that, I’ll calculate the total rest stop time by multiplying the number of rest st...

  94. [103]

    Then, I’ll find out how many times he needs to refill his gas tank by dividing the total gallons used by the capacity of his gas tank

    Next, I’ll determine how much gas he uses during the trip by dividing the total distance by his car’s fuel efficiency. Then, I’ll find out how many times he needs to refill his gas tank by dividing the total gallons used by the capacity of his gas tank

  95. [104]

    Finally, I’ll add up the driving time, rest stop time, and gas stop time to get the total time for the trip in minutes

    Each refill takes 10 minutes, so I’ll multiply the number of refills by 10 to get the total gas stop time. Finally, I’ll add up the driving time, rest stop time, and gas stop time to get the total time for the trip in minutes

  96. [105]

    Let’s break down Jeremy’s trip step by step to determine the total time he takes to reach his parents’ house. ###1. Calculate the Total Driving Time Distance to Travel: 600 miles Average Speed: 50 miles per hour Driving Time = Distance/Speed = 600 miles/50 mph = 12 hours

  97. [106]

    Determine the Number of Rest Stops Jeremy makes a rest stop every 2 hours of driving

    ###2. Determine the Number of Rest Stops Jeremy makes a rest stop every 2 hours of driving. Number of Rest Stops = 12 hours/2 hours per stop = 6 stops. Each rest stop lasts 15 minutes. Total Rest Stop Time = 6 stops * 15 minutes = 90 minutes = 1.5 hours

  98. [107]

    Calculate the Gas Consumption and Stops Car Fuel Efficiency: 18 miles per gallon Total Gas Used: Total Gas = 600 miles/18 mpg = 33.33 gallons

    ###3. Calculate the Gas Consumption and Stops Car Fuel Efficiency: 18 miles per gallon Total Gas Used: Total Gas = 600 miles/18 mpg = 33.33 gallons

  99. [108]

    Number of Gas Stops = 33.33 gallons/15 gallons = 2.22 stops

    Number of Gas Stops: Since the gas indicator comes on after using 15 gallons, we divide the total gas by the gas used per stop. Number of Gas Stops = 33.33 gallons/15 gallons = 2.22 stops

  100. [109]

    Therefore, he makes 2 gas stops

    However, since he starts with a full tank, he will need to refill before the gas runs out. Therefore, he makes 2 gas stops. Each gas stop takes 10 minutes. Total Gas Stop Time = 2 stops * 10 minutes = 20 minutes = 1/3 hour

  101. [110]

    ###4. Calculate the Total Time Total Time = Driving Time + Rest Stop Time + Gas Stop Time Total Time = 12 hours + 1.5 hours + 1/3 hours = 13.833 hours Convert the total time to minutes: 13.833 hours * 60 minutes/hour = 830 minutes Participant task:There are several steps liste...

  102. [111]

    The insur- ance costs $20 per month, so multiplying that by 24 gives the total insurance expenditure

    First, I need to calculate the total cost of Tom’s pet insurance over 24 months. The insur- ance costs $20 per month, so multiplying that by 24 gives the total insurance expenditure

  103. [112]

    The surgery itself costs $5000, but Tom’s pet insurance covers all but 20% of this amount

    Next, I’ll determine the cost of the surgery. The surgery itself costs $5000, but Tom’s pet insurance covers all but 20% of this amount. To find the amount covered by insurance, I’ll calculate 20% of $5000 and subtract that from the total surgery cost to get the out-of-pocket expense

  104. [113]

    By subtracting the out-of-pocket expense from the insurance cost, I can determine how much money Tom saved by having insurance

    After that, I’ll compare the total insurance cost with the out-of-pocket surgery cost to find the savings. By subtracting the out-of-pocket expense from the insurance cost, I can determine how much money Tom saved by having insurance. Finally, I’ll present the calculated savin...

  105. [114]

    ###Step 1: Calculate the Total Pet Insurance Cost Tom has pet insurance for 24 months at a cost of $20 per month

    Let’s break down the problem step by step to determine how much money Tom saved by having pet insurance. ###Step 1: Calculate the Total Pet Insurance Cost Tom has pet insurance for 24 months at a cost of $20 per month

  106. [115]

    Total Insurance Cost = 24 months * $20/month = $480 ###Step 2: Determine the Surgery Cost Covered by Insurance The surgery costs $5000, and the insurance covers all but 20% of this amount

  107. [116]

    Insurance Coverage = 100% - 20% = 80% Amount Covered by Insurance = 80% * $5000 = 0.8 * $5000 = $4000

  108. [117]

    Out-of-Pocket Expense = 20% * $5000 = 0.2 * $5000 = $1000

    ###Step 3: Calculate the Out-of-Pocket Expense Tom will pay the remaining 20% of the surgery cost out of pocket. Out-of-Pocket Expense = 20% * $5000 = 0.2 * $5000 = $1000

  109. [118]

    Savings = Total Insurance Cost - Out-of-Pocket Expense = $480 - $1000 = -$520

    ###Step 4: Determine the Savings To find out how much Tom saved by having insurance, subtract the out-of-pocket expense from the total insurance cost. Savings = Total Insurance Cost - Out-of-Pocket Expense = $480 - $1000 = -$520

  110. [119]

    However, this doesn’t make sense because insurance should reduce his expenses

    Wait, this result indicates that Tom actually spent $520 more with insurance compared to not having insurance. However, this doesn’t make sense because insurance should reduce his expenses. Let’s re-examine the calculations. Revised Approach The correct way to calculate savings is:

  111. [120]

    The correct way to calculate savings is: Savings = Surgery Cost - (Surgery Cost - Insurance Coverage) - Total Insurance Cost Savings = $5000 - ($5000 * 0.8) - $480 = $5000 - $4000 - $480 = $520 Participant task:There are several steps listed; please select which step you prefe...

  112. [2021]

    Let me check the options provided

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.