Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

A language model that cannot solve hard math problems can still generate the easier stepping-stone problems that make those hard problems learnable, and the SOAR teacher-student meta-RL loop makes this self-curriculum work in practice.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 07:53 UTC pith:UVZKDAHO

load-bearing objection Grounded meta-RL for self-generated curricula is a real finding with solid empirical support; the main gap is that the teacher's reward signal is never validated against held-out transfer. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18778 v3 pith:UVZKDAHO submitted 2026-01-26 cs.LG cs.CL

Teaching Models to Teach Themselves: Reasoning at the Edge of Learnability

Shobhita Sundaram , John Quan , Ariel Kwiatkowski , Kartik Ahuja , Yann Ollivier , Julia Kempe This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords meta-reinforcement learningself-playcurriculum learningsparse rewardssynthetic datamathematical reasoningteacher-studentLLM fine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to establish that a pretrained language model can break its own reasoning plateau by generating an automated curriculum of stepping-stone problems, even for tasks where its initial success rate is exactly zero. The authors build SOAR, an asymmetric teacher-student meta-reinforcement-learning loop in which the teacher proposes synthetic math question-answer pairs and is rewarded only when a student copy of the model measurably improves on a sample of the real hard problems. On the hardest subsets of MATH and HARP (0/128 baseline success), training on these self-generated questions raises pass@1 roughly 4x on MATH and 2x on HARP relative to direct training on the hard problems. The surprising part is that the teacher never sees the hard problems and most of its generated answers are wrong; question structure and pedagogical usefulness, not correctness, drive learning. If the claim holds, RL fine-tuning can be kick-started without curated data, and the capacity to teach stepping stones is distinct from the capacity to solve.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a model's pedagogical ability — generating useful stepping-stone questions — is decoupled from its task-solving ability. Using a 3-billion-parameter instruct-tuned model, SOAR initializes teacher and student as copies of the same base model. Each outer-loop step the teacher samples 64 synthetic problems; the student trains on them for 10 inner-loop steps; and the teacher's reward is the student's accuracy gain on a fresh 64-question subsample of the real fail@128 training set. When the moving-average reward crosses a threshold, the improved student is promoted and its training questions are stored as 'promotion questions.' Fresh students trained on these que

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the grounded meta-RL reward R(X_k) = Acc(student trained on X_k on Q_R) − Acc(initial student on Q_R), computed after a short 10-step inner-loop RLOO training of the student on the teacher's candidate question set X_k and evaluated on a fresh subsample Q_R of the hard training set. By assigning this black-box improvement signal as the reward for the teacher, SOAR turns curriculum generation into a bilevel RL problem that is solved without unrolling the inner loop: the outer teacher loop uses RLOO policy gradients, and a promotion mechanism periodically resets the student baseline to the improved student, accumulating useful questions along the way. This grounded

Load-bearing premise

The teacher's reward is a short-horizon accuracy gain on a randomly subsampled set of just 64 training problems after only 10 student training steps, and the whole method assumes this proxy faithfully tracks durable generalization to the held-out test problems.

What would settle it

Train SOAR while rotating the reward subsample Q_R to a fresh disjoint set of 64 problems at every outer-loop iteration, then check whether teacher rewards stay positive and whether final questions still improve held-out test accuracy; if gains vanish on a fresh Q_R, the teacher overfit its reward set rather than finding genuinely transferable stepping stones.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Direct RLVR fine-tuning on problems with near-zero initial success can be kick-started: self-generated questions provide the gradient signal that the hard problems themselves cannot.
  • Curated intermediate datasets are not strictly necessary; synthetic promotion questions recover about 75% of the pass@32 gain of training on the full official MATH training set.
  • Grounded student-progress rewards outperform intrinsic learnability rewards, avoiding the diversity collapse and occasional complete failure observed with self-reward loops.
  • Questions trained on MATH and HARP transfer out-of-distribution to OlympiadBench, indicating generalizable reasoning pathways rather than benchmark-specific overfitting.
  • Because structure and well-posedness matter more than correctness, synthetic questions with wrong answers can still serve as effective curricula — a useful degree of freedom when automatic verification is unavailable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the decoupling claim scales, curriculum search can be treated as an optimization problem in question space driven purely by student progress, separate from solver scaling; this suggests a path toward training on problems that are currently beyond the model's ability.
  • The fragile link is the reward proxy: 10 inner-loop steps on a 64-question subsample. A testable extension is to rotate Q_R across disjoint subsamples each outer-loop iteration; teachers that still produce transferable questions under rotation would demonstrate the grounding is real rather than reward-subset overfitting.
  • The finding that correctness is not required suggests that the scarce resource in synthetic-data training is question coherence and diversity, not answer verification — which could simplify data-generation pipelines for domains where verification is expensive.
  • The same grounded loop could extend beyond math to code or scientific reasoning, where binary success signals make rewards sparse, though the paper only demonstrates math benchmarks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. SOAR is a teacher-student meta-RL framework in which a teacher LLM generates synthetic math question-answer pairs and is rewarded by the improvement of a student LLM on a fresh 64-question subsample of a hard fail@128 training set after 10 inner-loop RL steps. The teacher never sees the hard questions as input. The paper reports on MATH, HARP, and held-out OlympiadBench that training a fresh student on the promoted questions (PQ) or evaluating the promoted student (PS) improves pass@k over direct Hard-Only training, that grounded rewards outperform an intrinsic learnability reward, and that generated questions need not have correct answers to be useful. The paper includes extensive ablations (6-12 nested seeds, Vendi diversity, correctness taxonomy, hyperparameter sensitivity) and positions the method as a proof of concept for escaping sparse-reward plateaus.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates a practical instantiation of bilevel meta-RL for LLM curriculum generation that uses a grounded reward, with held-out test evaluation and multi-seed nesting. The decoupling of teaching and solving is an interesting and falsifiable claim, and the cross-dataset transfer results are a strength. The empirical core is substantial and largely reproducible in spirit (full hyperparameters, prompts, dataset sizes, and nested seeds are reported). However, the current evidence does not yet establish the central causal interpretation because of the reward-proxy and compute-matching gaps, and the 'structure over correctness' claim is overreached. The paper's own Limitations section acknowledges computational cost but does not address the reward-proxy validity, which is the more serious threat to interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Algorithm 1] The teacher reward is R(X_k) = Acc(π^S_{θ'_k}(Q_R)) − Acc(π^S_θ(Q_R)), with Q_R a fresh 64-question subsample of Dtrain and θ'_k obtained from only 10 inner-loop steps (batch size 8, r=4). The central claim that SOAR 'grounds the curriculum in real student progress' requires this short-horizon, small-sample reward to be a faithful proxy for durable generalization to Dtest. The paper never checks whether R(X) computed on Q_R correlates with R(X) computed on an independent Dtest sample, and never ablates inner-loop length, Q_R size, or resampling frequency. Because Q_R is resampled, this is not fixed-set memorization, but it can still be distributional overfitting to the reward-sampling distribution (e.g., matching topic mix or surface form). Under the promotion rule (moving-average reward > τ=0.01), noisy rewards can also promote by chance, so Dbest may be partly noise. Please add a rewar
  2. [Section 4.4 / Table 4] The compute-matched baseline is not actually matched. Hard-Only trains a student for up to 1500 steps; the SOAR outer loop entails g×r×inner_steps = 4×4×10 = 160 student parameter updates per outer iteration, i.e., roughly 32,000 student updates over 200 outer iterations, plus teacher updates and student evaluations. The Hard-Only(g=128) variant increases the RLOO group size 4× but does not increase the number of training steps, so it is not a matched-compute comparison. The Discussion's statement that 'reallocating compute to direct training on hard problems via repeated sampling does not recover the improvements' is therefore not supported by the reported baselines. A Hard-Only run with a comparable total student-update budget (or a clear argument why inner-loop updates are not comparable to direct-training updates) is needed before claiming that synthetic questions, rather than additi
  3. [Section 5.3 / Table 7] The claim that 'question structure and well-posedness are more critical than solution correctness' is not established by the presented comparison. The comparison between Grounded-T/PQ and Intrinsic-T confounds answer correctness with diversity (Table 1: Vendi scores 31.99/28.33 vs. 10.82) and with the teacher objective itself. Intrinsic-T has higher correctness (55.5%) but also much lower diversity and higher ambiguity errors; the paper itself attributes its worse performance to diversity collapse. To support the causal 'structure over correctness' claim, the authors would need to hold diversity/well-posedness fixed while varying correctness (e.g., correcting the answers of PQ questions, or adding incorrect answers to a diverse question set). As written, this is an over-interpretation of correlated observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5] The text says 'we report the median and standard deviation', but Tables 4-6 report 'Mean and SD over seeds'. Please clarify which statistic is used; if medians are used somewhere, report them consistently.
  2. [Figure 3] The legend/axis label has a typo: 'Instrinsic' should be 'Intrinsic'.
  3. [Section 4.3 / Appendix B.6] The PS evaluation selects the best of up to four promoted students based on Dtrain greedy accuracy, and the teacher checkpoint is fixed at step 200/170 based on observations from initial runs. This is not circular because Dtest remains held out, but it is an optimistic selection procedure; please report the range across promoted students or a pre-registered selection rule to make the PS numbers easier to interpret.
  4. [Section 5.3 / Appendix C.4] The correctness taxonomy relies on Claude-4.5-Sonnet as an oracle, but no inter-annotator agreement or manual verification sample is reported. Given the 'structure over correctness' claim, some validation of the oracle's judgments would be useful.
  5. [Appendix B.2] Proposition 1 is a nice detail. The statement 'This is not true for simple Reinforce' could be made more precise by adding a one-line counterexample or citation, since the proof only shows equality for RLOO advantages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: teacher reward is grounded in Dtrain and all main claims are evaluated on held-out Dtest.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The outer-loop objective (Eq. 1) is max_phi E[R(pi^S_{theta'(X)}, Dtrain)] with theta'(X) = RL-update(theta, X), and the implemented reward in Section 3.2 is R(X_k) = Acc(pi^S_{theta'_k}(Q_R)) - Acc(pi^S_theta(Q_R)), where Q_R is a fresh subsample of Dtrain. This is a direct empirical estimate of the stated objective, not a quantity defined in terms of the held-out result it is used to predict. The paper's headline claims (PQ/PS gains, transfer to OlympiadBench) are evaluated on a disjoint Dtest (Section 4.3) and the teacher never sees the hard test questions. Thus there is no reduction of a 'prediction' to a fitted input: the grounded reward is the training signal, which is legitimate reinforcement learning rather than a circular derivation. The self-citations in Section 5.2 ('This is yet another example of the sharpening mechanism of RL (Yue et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2025b; Tsilivis et al., 2025a,b)') are interpretive framing and are not load-bearing for the empirical claims; no uniqueness theorem and no ansatz is imported as an external fact. The stated limitation in Section 6 concerns computational cost, not a missing derivation. The only substantive risk suggested by the paper's own setup is that the 64-question reward subset could be gamed by distributional overfitting rather than general improvement, but the paper never claims that the reward subset is the test set, and such a concern is an empirical validity risk, not definitional circularity. I therefore find no circular step that can be exhibited by quotation and reduction, and assign score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The free parameters are standard hyperparameters, but several are load-bearing: promotion threshold and inner dataset size shape the curriculum, and the early-stop threshold selects the reported student checkpoint. The axioms are mostly domain assumptions about the model, verifier, and evaluation protocol that the paper does not independently establish.

free parameters (5)
  • Promotion threshold τ = 0.01
    Hand-tuned over {0.01, 0.015, 0.02}; controls when the student baseline is promoted and therefore which questions accumulate into the PQ set.
  • Inner dataset size n = 64
    Swept over {8, 16, 32, 64}; the teacher is rewarded at this dataset size, so evaluation at larger sampling sizes is an extrapolation.
  • Parallel student repeats r = 4
    Chosen to stabilize teacher rewards by averaging over parallel student trainings; increases compute substantially.
  • Early-stop slope threshold = 15%
    Used to select student checkpoints for reporting; the authors say 10–20% is insensitive, but the choice still affects reported pass@k values.
  • Moving-average window = 3
    Determines how quickly a promotion is triggered; only {1, 3} were considered.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The pretrained Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct contains latent pedagogical knowledge sufficient to generate useful stepping-stone questions without seeing the hard problems.
    This is the hypothesis the method is built to test; if absent, SOAR has nothing to sharpen.
  • domain assumption Improvement on a fresh 64-question subsample of Dtrain after 10 student RL steps is a reliable, non-hackable proxy for progress on Dtest.
    The entire teacher reward is this difference; it is not separately validated against longer horizons or other subsets.
  • domain assumption Math-Verify correctly judges answer equivalence on all fail@128 questions and on teacher-generated questions.
    Used in inner-loop and evaluation rewards; verifier errors would mislead the teacher and alter all reported metrics.
  • domain assumption Claude-4.5-Sonnet oracle labels are accurate for the well-posedness/correctness taxonomy.
    The 'structure over correctness' claim depends on this external judge without independent human verification.
  • domain assumption The fail@128 filter creates a genuine learning plateau for Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct under RLOO.
    Hard-Only results support this for one model and one verifier, but the plateau is operationalized operationally rather than proven general.
  • standard math Proposition 1 (RLOO update with rejection sampling) is valid.
    Proved in Appendix B.2; used so the teacher can be trained on format-filtered generations.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teaching Models to Teach Themselves: Reasoning at the Edge of Learnability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVZKDAHO

@misc{pith2026260118778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teaching Models to Teach Themselves: Reasoning at the Edge of Learnability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVZKDAHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.18778}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

RL methods for scaling large reasoning models stall on datasets with low initial success rates, and thus little training signal. We investigate a fundamental question: Can a pretrained LLM leverage latent knowledge to generate an automated curriculum for problems it cannot solve? We explore this with SOAR: An asymmetric self-play framework that uses meta-RL to surface these pedagogical signals. A teacher model proposes synthetic problems for a student model, and is rewarded with its improvement on a subset of hard problems, thus grounding the curriculum in real student progress rather than intrinsic proxy rewards. Our study on the hardest subsets of math benchmarks (0/128 success) reveals three core findings. First, it is possible to realize bilevel meta-RL that unlocks learning under sparse, binary rewards by sharpening a latent capacity of pretrained models to generate useful problems. Second, grounded rewards outperform intrinsic learnability rewards used in prior LLM self-play, reliably avoiding typical instability and diversity collapse modes. Third, the structure and well-posedness of questions are more critical for learning progress than solution correctness. Our results suggest that the ability to generate useful stepping stones does not require the preexisting ability to solve the hard problems, paving a principled path to escape reasoning plateaus without additional curated data

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Bridging Compute- and Data-Optimal Pretraining

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Pretraining loss obeys a single law in which repeated or paraphrased tokens count as η(N, data-per-parameter, expansion-ratio) fresh tokens, with total effective data saturating as derived tokens grow.

  2. PopuLoRA: Co-Evolving LLM Populations for Reasoning Self-Play

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PopuLoRA shows that co-evolving populations of LoRA adapters through cross-evaluated self-play can outperform compute-matched single-agent baselines on multiple code and math reasoning benchmarks.

  3. Scaling Self-Play with Self-Guidance

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SGS adds self-guidance to LLM self-play for Lean4 theorem proving, surpassing RL baselines and enabling a 7B model to outperform a 671B model after 200 rounds.

  4. Policy Improvement Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PIRL maximizes cumulative policy improvement across iterations instead of surrogate rewards and is proven aligned with final performance; PIPO implements it via retrospective verification for stable closed-loop optimization.

  5. Policy Improvement Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    PIPO adds closed-loop policy-improvement feedback to RL post-training so updates that raise measured performance are reinforced and those that drop it are suppressed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    fragment

    Analyze the QUESTION for completeness. If it’s a "fragment" or "nonsense," stop and flag it

  2. [2]

    Solve the problem ONLY if it is well-defined

  3. [3]

    N/A" if not well-posed OUTPUT FORMAT: First, provide your reasoning in <think> tags. Then, provide a JSON object with the following exact structure: ‘‘‘json {{

    Determine: - is_well_posed: boolean - Is the question mathematically complete and solvable? - is_correct: boolean - Is the proposed answer correct? (Only evaluate if is_well_posed is true) - error_type: one of [’None’, ’Arithmetic’, ’Logical_Fallacy’, ’Ill_Posed’, ’Ambiguous’] - verified_answer: string - The correct answer if the question is well-posed, o...

  4. [5]

    Sheikh Shafayat, Fahim Tajwar, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Jeff Schneider, and Andrea Zanette

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=H1e0Wp4KvH. Sheikh Shafayat, Fahim Tajwar, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Jeff Schneider, and Andrea Zanette. Can large reasoning models self-train?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21444. David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew H. Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan ...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [7]

    ISBN 979-8-89176-288-6

    Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8-89176-288-6. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-industry.24. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-industry.24/. Ziyu Ye, Rishabh Agarwal, Tianqi Liu, Rishabh Joshi, Sarmishta Velury, Quoc V. Le, Qijun Tan, and Yuan Liu. Scalable reinforcement post-training beyond static human prompts: Evolving alignment via asy...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-industry.24 2025

  6. [8]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00062. Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, YuYue, Weinan Dai, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Juncai Liu, LingJun Liu, Xin Liu, Haibin Lin, Zhiqi Lin, Bole Ma, Guangming Sheng, Yuxuan Tong, Chi Zhang, Mofan Zhang, Ru Zhang, Wang Zhang, Hang Zhu, Jinhua Zhu, Jiaze Chen, Jiangjie Chen, Chengyi Wang, Hongli...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [9]

    just- hard-enough

    leverages per-domain scaling laws to estimate the learning potential of various data sources online Jiang et al. (2025). By contrast, our goal is not to arrange data but to elicit learning on a fixed, verifiable hard dataset where standard GRPO fails. A.2 Self-Play and Teacher-Student Setups Self-play offers a complementary lens on autonomous capability g...

    2025

  8. [13]

    Sampleπ T ϕ (qi|p)wherepis a teacher prompt to generate a question

  9. [14]

    " ! " ! $ $ # #

    Sampleπ T ϕ (ai|p, qi, p′)wherep ′ is a prompt to generate an answer given the question. The logprob component of the teacher RLOO loss is thenlog(πT ϕ (qi|p)) + log(πT ϕ (ai|p, qi, p′)). We executeSOAR across four seeds using this teacher-sampling formulation with our standard procedure and hyperparameters, ablating n∈ {32, 64}. We observe that the teach...

  10. [2017]

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun

    URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/graves17a.html. Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. OlympiadBench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AGI with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. In Lun-Wei Ku, And...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [2018]

    Yiyou Sun, Yuhan Cao, Pohao Huang, Haoyue Bai, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Nouha Dziri, and Dawn Song

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=SkT5Yg-RZ. Yiyou Sun, Yuhan Cao, Pohao Huang, Haoyue Bai, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Nouha Dziri, and Dawn Song. Rl grokking recipe: How does rl unlock and transfer new algorithms in llms?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21016. Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao...

    arXiv 2025

  12. [2020]

    Timothy Nguyen, Roman Novak, Lechao Xiao, and Jaehoon Lee

    URLhttp://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-212.html. Timothy Nguyen, Roman Novak, Lechao Xiao, and Jaehoon Lee. Dataset distillation with infinitely wide convolutional networks. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 5186–5198. Curran Associates, Inc....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [2024]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.662

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.662. URLhttps://aclanthology. org/2024.acl-long.662/. Reyhane Askari-Hemmat, Mohammad Pezeshki, Elvis Dohmatob, Florian Bordes, Pietro Astolfi, Melissa Hall, Jakob Verbeek, Michal Drozdzal, and Adriana Romero-Soriano. Improving the scaling laws of synthetic data with deliberate prac...

    arXiv 2024

  14. [2025]

    Mihir Prabhudesai, Lili Chen, Alex Ippoliti, Katerina Fragkiadaki, Hao Liu, and Deepak Pathak

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06632. Mihir Prabhudesai, Lili Chen, Alex Ippoliti, Katerina Fragkiadaki, Hao Liu, and Deepak Pathak. Maximizing confidence alone improves reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22660. Sebastien Racaniere, Andrew Lampinen, Adam Santoro, David Reichert, Vlad Firoiu, and Timothy Lillicrap. Automated curriculum generatio...

    arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.