Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 87 references

MedCalc-R1: Knowledge-Guided Reward Framework for Medical Mathematical Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A small model with formula-checked rewards can beat far larger open models on clinical calculations.

desk verdict MedCalc-R1 is a competent RLVR-for-medical-reasoning paper with a real empirical gain, but the knowledge-verifier reward is asserted more than validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08623 v1 pith:PEFAM6V2 submitted 2026-08-09 cs.AI

Haotian Wang , Lian Yan , Xingzhi Yao , Fanshu Meng , Ye He , Jingchi Jiang , Yi Guan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords medicalmathematicalreasoningreinforcementlearningwithverifiablerewardsrewarddesignformulaverificationsoft-hardMedCalc-BenchGRPO
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

Reinforcement learning for clinical calculations normally rewards a prediction only when it falls inside a fixed tolerance window around the true number; the authors argue this creates a calibration-stability dilemma and can reward lucky approximations. Their proposed framework instead makes the model emit an explicit formula and a reasoning trace, verifies the formula with a frozen LLM judge, and scores the numeric answer with a hard safety-interval reward plus a continuous soft reward. On MedCalc-Bench, the trained 3-billion-parameter model scores 51.34, the best result among open-weight models and close to much larger closed-source systems. The thesis is that reward design, not scale, is what small models need for reliable clinical calculation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reward composition $R=\alpha R_f+\beta R_k+\gamma R_a$ in Eq. (2), with the knowledge reward $R_k$ and the hybrid answer reward $R_a$ doing the new work. $R_k$ uses a stronger frozen language model as an external judge to enforce that the generated formula is semantically aligned with medical guidelines, preventing formula hallucination and knowledge forgetting; $R_a$ combines a hard clinical safety threshold with a soft exponential reward so the optimization landscape is coarse-to-fine rather than sparsely binary. These rewards supply the group-relative advantages in GRPO, so the entire argument depends on whether this composite signal, not the base model's scale, drives the accuracy gains.

What would settle it

Take a gold-standard sample of formulas from MedCalc-Bench, label each as valid or invalid by clinical experts, run the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct verifier on the same sample, and compare its binary verdicts with the expert labels; if agreement is low or biased toward rejecting valid formulas, the knowledge reward's contribution to MedCalc-R1's gains is not the mechanism the paper claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MedCalc-R1 claims that a knowledge-guided hybrid reward makes a 1.5B or 3B model reason reliably about clinical calculations. Training starts with SFT on 9,765 MedCalc-Bench instances, then GRPO optimizes a weighted sum of three rewards: format reward for the required formula/reasoning/answer structure, knowledge reward $R_k\in\{1.0,-1.0\}$ from a frozen Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct verifier that judges whether the formula matches the task's valid formula set, and answer reward $R_a=R_{\mathrm{hard}}+R_{\mathrm{soft}}$ where $R_{\mathrm{hard}}$ is binary on the clinical interval $[L,U]$ and $R_{\mathrm{soft}}=\exp(-|v-v^*|/\tau)$. The resulting MedCalc-R1 3B reaches 51.34 average accuracy on MedCalc-Bench, ahead of all open-weight baselines including Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct at 39.03, and ablations show the two reward components are complementary: removing both costs 11.74 points.

Load-bearing premise

The formula-verification reward assumes the frozen judge LLM correctly decides whether a generated formula matches medical guidelines and the patient context, yet the paper never measures the judge's own error rate against a gold standard.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3B model trained this way outperforms all open-weight baselines on MedCalc-Bench (51.34 vs 39.03 for Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct) and substantially narrows the gap to o1-mini and DeepSeek-R1.
  • Ablation results attribute 11.74 average points to the two reward components together, with equation-based tasks relying mainly on formula verification and rule-based tasks on the hybrid reward.
  • SFT alone can hurt unseen-task performance, while SFT plus RL improves generalization to new medical subtasks and to the open-domain GSM8K and GPQA benchmarks.
  • Formula recall improves from 12.02 in the base model to 57.92 in MedCalc-R1, and final accuracy rises by 10.69 points over the SFT baseline, showing the reward closes the gap between knowing a formula and applying it correctly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same reward decomposition is a natural fit for other numerical safety-critical tasks, such as drug dose adjustments, lab-value flags, or ventilator settings, wherever a verifiable formula or rubric exists; the paper only tests clinical calculators.
  • Because $R_{\mathrm{soft}}$ uses absolute error symmetrically, it implicitly assigns equal cost to over- and under-estimation; an asymmetric penalty aligned with clinical risk, such as different costs for overdose versus underdose, would be a straightforward extension the authors do not explore.
  • If the frozen judge is swapped for a deterministic symbolic evaluator of the emitted formula, the framework would gain a formal guarantee and remove the unmeasured judge-error risk; the paper's results do not establish that an LLM judge is necessary for the gains.
  • The larger gain on GPQA than on GSM8K hints that process-level reward for formula fidelity may teach general constraint-following rather than medical memorization; this is an inference, since the paper provides only two open-domain benchmarks.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MEDCALC-R1, a two-stage SFT+RL framework for medical mathematical reasoning on MedCalc-Bench. The RL stage uses GRPO with a composite reward: a format reward, a knowledge verification reward from a frozen LLM judge (Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct) that checks whether the generated formula matches clinical guidelines, and an answer reward combining a hard tolerance interval with a soft exponential precision term. Experiments report that a 3B model achieves 51.34 average accuracy, outperforming zero-shot open-source baselines and SFT baselines. The authors attribute gains to the knowledge-guided and hybrid soft-hard reward design.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work would offer a practical recipe for RLVR with continuous outputs, combining process-level formula verification with safety-aware rewards. The two-stage design and the hybrid soft-hard answer reward are reasonable and the experimental gains over SFT are non-trivial. However, the core attribution to the knowledge verifier is currently unsupported because the verifier itself is never validated, and the missing tolerance-based RLVR baseline weakens the comparison with the standard approach.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The knowledge verifier's correctness is never evaluated. The ablation in Table 2 shows only that removing this reward component changes performance, which does not establish that the reward signal is semantically correct. Appendix F evaluates the final policy's formula recall using GPT-4o, not the judge's decisions. Provide a direct evaluation of the verifier against gold-standard formulas (e.g., precision, recall, and error analysis), and examine how judge errors affect the reward signal and training.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 1] The main experiments lack a direct baseline with a plain tolerance-based RLVR reward. The paper motivates the framework by the failure of tolerance-based rewards, but never trains such a model on MedCalc-Bench under the same SFT+GRPO pipeline. Add a baseline with R_answer set to the binary tolerance reward (same SFT init, same GRPO, same rollout settings) and report it in Table 1 (and ideally also in the ablations). Appendix C's Table 3 uses a small subset and a slightly different protocol; it does not substitute for the main comparison.
  3. [Section 4.5, Table 2] The "w/o HyRe" ablation removes both the hard and soft components together, so the individual contributions of the hard safety constraint and the soft precision reward are not isolated. Add ablations that remove only the hard component and only the soft component. Additionally, the reward weights alpha, beta, gamma are all set to 1.0 with no sensitivity analysis; since these are free parameters, please report at least a small sweep or justify the choice.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 4] The per-category train task counts sum to 41, not 38 as stated in the "Overall" row, while the test sum is 57 as stated. This inconsistency is important because the number of unseen test tasks underpins the generalization claims. Please correct the table and clarify the exact split of unseen tasks, including how Figure 6 defines "unseen tasks."
  5. [Section 4.4 and 4.5 (reproducibility)] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds are reported for any experiment. Given the stochastic nature of RL with a group size of 5, single-run results are not sufficient to support the accuracy differences claimed. Report means and standard deviations over at least 3 seeds for the main results and ablations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1 vs Section 3.3] The Introduction describes the verifier as an "external solver," but Section 3.3 uses a frozen LLM judge; align the terminology to avoid overstating determinism.
  2. [Section 4.4] The phrase "Inequation-based tasks" should be corrected to "In equation-based tasks."
  3. [Figure 6] The x-axis labels are missing and the "unseen tasks" subset is not clearly defined; specify which tasks are considered unseen and add axis labels.
  4. [Table 2 caption] Define the abbreviations "KnoRe" and "HyRe" in the caption for readability.
  5. [Figure 5] The x-axis label "Sample /glyph1197umber" contains a rendering artifact; it should read "Sample Number."
  6. [Table 1] Some rows have numbers concatenated without spacing (e.g., the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B row); please format the table consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reward framework is validated against external benchmark ground truths and the knowledge verifier is a frozen, independently chosen LLM.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a knowledge-guided hybrid reward framework improves medical mathematical reasoning. The answer reward uses ground-truth values v* and clinical tolerance intervals [L,U] taken directly from MedCalc-Bench (Section 3.4, Eqs. 4-6), and the reported accuracy is measured against the same benchmark's test labels; no quantity is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction. The knowledge verification reward (Section 3.3, Eq. 3) delegates formula validity to a frozen Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct judge that is not trained on the target policy or on the test set, so the reward signal is not constructed from the final predictions. The ablation study (Table 2) empirically measures the effect of removing each reward component rather than assuming it. Self-citations to GRPO and DeepSeek-R1 are citations to established external methods and are not load-bearing for the paper's own contribution. The reviewer-identified concern that the LLM verifier's accuracy is not separately calibrated is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity issue: even a noisy judge would make the training signal empirical rather than definitional. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce its central result to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on empirical training results rather than derivation. The main assumptions are the reliability of the LLM verifier, the correctness of the benchmark's safety intervals and answers, and the validity of GRPO for this setting. The listed hyperparameters are chosen by hand or by validation-set observation, which introduces selection bias but not circularity.

free parameters (6)
  • Reward weights alpha, beta, gamma = 1.0 each
    Set to equal weights by hand to avoid task-specific tuning (Appendix B).
  • Hard reward magnitudes r+, r- = 2.0 / 3.0
    Chosen by hand in Appendix B.
  • Soft reward temperature tau = 1.0
    Chosen by hand in Appendix B.
  • Rollout count K = 5
    Selected based on observed performance in Figure 5; larger values give diminishing returns.
  • Knowledge verifier model size = 14B
    Selected based on Figure 4; 32B caused reward sparsity, 7B was undercalibrated.
  • SFT checkpoint step = 400
    Selected to mitigate overfitting (Appendix B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The frozen LLM verifier (Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct) accurately determines whether a generated formula is semantically valid for the medical context.
    Section 3.3 Eq. (3) assigns +/-1 reward based on this verifier, but its accuracy is never calibrated against a gold standard.
  • domain assumption The clinical tolerance intervals [L, U] from MedCalc-Bench are correct safety thresholds.
    Used as the hard constraint in Eq. (4); if these intervals are wrong, the safety argument fails.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth answers and annotations in MedCalc-Bench are correct.
    Both SFT and reward computation rely on them.
  • domain assumption GRPO with the specified reward is a valid and stable optimization method for this task.
    Algorithm 1 uses GRPO; no comparison to other optimizers is made in the main results except in Figure 3.
  • domain assumption Models follow the output template so formulas are parseable and verifiable.
    The whole framework depends on the model emitting formula/think/answer tags as specified in Table 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MedCalc-R1: Knowledge-Guided Reward Framework for Medical Mathematical Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEFAM6V2

@misc{pith2026260808623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MedCalc-R1: Knowledge-Guided Reward Framework for Medical Mathematical Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEFAM6V2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08623}
}
read the original abstract

In Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) frameworks for mathematical reasoning tasks, floating-point results are typically evaluated using a tolerance-based reward. However, this strategy suffers from challenges such as difficulty in threshold calibration, unstable training dynamics, and limited accuracy, especially in clinical scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose a knowledge-guided hybrid reward framework (\textsc{MedCalc-R1}). Specifically, we introduce a knowledge verification reward mechanism that enforces explicit generation of computational formulas, which are further validated by an external verifier to enhance interpretability and reasoning reliability. Furthermore, we design a hybrid soft-hard reward scheme combining a hard constraint based on clinical safety thresholds with a soft, precision-sensitive reward that progressively guides learning within the acceptable range. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms existing baselines in both reasoning accuracy and generalization capability, validating the effectiveness and applicability in safety-critical domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sensitivity analysis of tolerance boundaries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed knowledge-guided reward framework. The framework follows a two-stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison under different rein [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of rollout sample size under the GRPO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generalization ability in open-domain numer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of tolerance thresholds and hybrid reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Generalization results under different medical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case study on creatinine clearance calculation using the Cockcroft-Gault equation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Case study on atrial fibrillation stroke risk assessment using the CHA2DS2-VASc score. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scaling Learning Algorithms Towards

    Bengio, Yoshua and LeCun, Yann , booktitle =. Scaling Learning Algorithms Towards

  2. [2]

    and Osindero, Simon and Teh, Yee Whye , journal =

    Hinton, Geoffrey E. and Osindero, Simon and Teh, Yee Whye , journal =. A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets , volume =

  3. [3]

    2016 , publisher=

    Deep learning , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  4. [4]

    Huajie Tan and Yuheng Ji and Xiaoshuai Hao and Xiansheng Chen and Pengwei Wang and Zhongyuan Wang and Shanghang Zhang , booktitle=. Reason-. 2025 , url=

    2025

  5. [5]

    and Zhang, Songyang and Chen, Kai

    Liu, Shudong and Liu, Hongwei and Liu, Junnan and Xiao, Linchen and Gao, Songyang and Lyu, Chengqi and Gu, Yuzhe and Zhang, Wenwei and Wong, Derek F. and Zhang, Songyang and Chen, Kai. C ompass V erifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLM s Evaluation and Outcome Reward. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1698 2025

  6. [6]

    Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE -Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLM s

    Ahmadian, Arash and Cremer, Chris and Gall. Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE -Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLM s. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.662

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

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    GLoRe: when, where, and how to improve LLM reasoning via global and local refinements , author=. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13939 , year=

    Med-r1: Reinforcement learning for generalizable medical reasoning in vision-language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13939 , year=

    arXiv

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23829 , year=

    Crossing the Reward Bridge: Expanding RL with Verifiable Rewards Across Diverse Domains , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23829 , year=

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , year=

    EIRAD: An evidence-based dialogue system with highly interpretable reasoning path for automatic diagnosis , author=. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , year=

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , year=

    Gpt-4o system card , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , year=

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Information Processing & Management , volume=

    Quality-Controllable automatic construction method of Chinese knowledge graph for medical decision-making applications , author=. Information Processing & Management , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  5. [13]

    MeNTi: Bridging medical calculator and LLM agent with nested tool calling , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2025

  6. [14]

    Bowman , booktitle=

    David Rein and Betty Li Hou and Asa Cooper Stickland and Jackson Petty and Richard Yuanzhe Pang and Julien Dirani and Julian Michael and Samuel R. Bowman , booktitle=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year=

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

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925 , year=

    Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925 , year=

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09567 , year=

    Towards reasoning era: A survey of long chain-of-thought for reasoning large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09567 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Navigate through Enigmatic Labyrinth A Survey of Chain of Thought Reasoning: Advances, Frontiers and Future

    Chu, Zheng and Chen, Jingchang and Chen, Qianglong and Yu, Weijiang and He, Tao and Wang, Haotian and Peng, Weihua and Liu, Ming and Qin, Bing and Liu, Ting. Navigate through Enigmatic Labyrinth A Survey of Chain of Thought Reasoning: Advances, Frontiers and Future. Proceeding...

    2024

  11. [19]

    The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , year=

    MedCalc-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models for Medical Calculations , author=. The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , year=

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    Qwen3 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , articleno =

    Ghosh, Sreyan and Evuru, Chandra Kiran Reddy and Kumar, Sonal and S, Ramaneswaran and Aneja, Deepali and Jin, Zeyu and Duraiswami, Ramani and Manocha, Dinesh , title =. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , articleno =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  14. [22]

    2025 , issn =

    Learning to break: Knowledge-enhanced reasoning in multi-agent debate system , journal =. 2025 , issn =

    2025

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , year=

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

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Harnessing the Power of Large Language Models for Natural Language to First-Order Logic Translation , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10400 , year=

    Reinforcement learning enhanced llms: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10400 , year=

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12728 , year=

    Relevant or Random: Can LLMs Truly Perform Analogical Reasoning? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12728 , year=

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196 , year=

    DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming--The Rise of Code Intelligence , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196 , year=

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year=

    Program synthesis with large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year=

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09100 , year=

    Logical reasoning in large language models: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09100 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09037 , year=

    A survey of frontiers in llm reasoning: Inference scaling, learning to reason, and agentic systems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09037 , year=

  23. [31]

    5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement , author=

    Qwen2. 5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122 , year=

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , editor=

    Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , editor=. 2022 , url=

    2022

  25. [33]

    Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=

    Tool learning with large language models: A survey , author=. Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Gpt-4 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08446 , year=

    A Survey on Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08446 , year=

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , year=

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the

    Dan Hendrycks and Collin Burns and Saurav Kadavath and Akul Arora and Steven Basart and Eric Tang and Dawn Song and Jacob Steinhardt , booktitle=. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the. 2021 , url=

    2021

  31. [39]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Pal: Program-aided language models , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  32. [40]

    Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 5: Industry Track) , pages=

    MathPrompter: Mathematical Reasoning using Large Language Models , author=. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 5: Industry Track) , pages=

  33. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 , year=

    Palm 2 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 , year=

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

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

  35. [43]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Let's Verify Step by Step , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  36. [44]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  37. [45]

    Nature , volume=

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge , author=. Nature , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  38. [46]

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=

    Reasoning with large language models for medical question answering , author=. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  39. [47]

    2025 , url=

    Tianzhe Chu and Yuexiang Zhai and Jihan Yang and Shengbang Tong and Saining Xie and Dale Schuurmans and Quoc V Le and Sergey Levine and Yi Ma , booktitle=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21787 , year=

    Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21787 , year=

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    5-thinking: Advancing superb reasoning models with reinforcement learning , author=

    Seed1. 5-thinking: Advancing superb reasoning models with reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13914 , year=

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262 , year=

    Reinforce++: An efficient rlhf algorithm with robustness to both prompt and reward models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262 , year=

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    2025 , eprint=

    REINFORCE++: Stabilizing Critic-Free Policy Optimization with Global Advantage Normalization , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year=

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year=

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , year=

    Openai o1 system card , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , year=

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02495 , year=

    Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02495 , year=

  47. [55]

    Nature medicine , volume=

    Large language models in medicine , author=. Nature medicine , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  48. [56]

    A position statement and resource document from NAEMSP , author=

    Medication dosing safety for pediatric patients: recognizing gaps, safety threats, and best practices in the emergency medical services setting. A position statement and resource document from NAEMSP , author=. Prehospital Emergency Care , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  49. [57]

    Search-R1: Training

    Bowen Jin and Hansi Zeng and Zhenrui Yue and Jinsung Yoon and Sercan O Arik and Dong Wang and Hamed Zamani and Jiawei Han , booktitle=. Search-R1: Training. 2025 , url=

    2025

  50. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366 , year=

    Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366 , year=

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Nursing Reports , volume=

    An Indispensable Requirement for Medical Dosage Calculation: Basic Mathematical Skills of Baccalaureate Nursing Students , author=. Nursing Reports , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  52. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09686 , year=

    Towards large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09686 , year=

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Questioning Our Questions: How Well Do Medical QA Benchmarks Evaluate Clinical Capabilities of Language Models?

    Kim, Siun and Yoon, Hyung-Jin. Questioning Our Questions: How Well Do Medical QA Benchmarks Evaluate Clinical Capabilities of Language Models?. Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.bionlp-1.24

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    Effective Multi-Task Learning for Biomedical Named Entity Recognition

    Ruano, Jo \ a o and Correia, Gon c alo and Barreiros, Leonor and Mendes, Afonso. Effective Multi-Task Learning for Biomedical Named Entity Recognition. Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.bionlp-1.20

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles , year=

    Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention , author=. Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles , year=

  56. [64]

    Transformer-Based Medical Statement Classification in Doctor-Patient Dialogues

    Bahrololloomi, Farnod and Luderschmidt, Johannes and Fu, Biying. Transformer-Based Medical Statement Classification in Doctor-Patient Dialogues. Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.bionlp-1.7

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    MAM : Modular Multi-Agent Framework for Multi-Modal Medical Diagnosis via Role-Specialized Collaboration

    Zhou, Yucheng and Song, Lingran and Shen, Jianbing. MAM : Modular Multi-Agent Framework for Multi-Modal Medical Diagnosis via Role-Specialized Collaboration. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1298

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    Breaking the Reasoning Barrier A Survey on LLM Complex Reasoning through the Lens of Self-Evolution , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    2025

  59. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11211 , year=

    A survey of llm-based agents in medicine: How far are we from baymax? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11211 , year=

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , year =

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , year =

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning , url =

    Qwen Team , month =. QwQ-32B: Embracing the Power of Reinforcement Learning , url =

  62. [70]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  63. [71]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  64. [72]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  65. [73]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  66. [74]

    1984 , issn =

    Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    1984 doi

  67. [75]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  68. [76]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  69. [77]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

  70. [78]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  71. [79]

    2017 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  72. [80]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  73. [81]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  74. [82]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  75. [83]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    1981

  76. [84]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  77. [85]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  78. [86]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  79. [87]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.