AdaKP: Online Adaptive Knowledge-Point Selection for Reasoning-Oriented Reinforcement Learning

Chunqiang Run; Zhenyu Zhao; Zibin Meng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

AdaKP: Online Adaptive Knowledge-Point Selection for Reasoning-Oriented Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AdaKP shows that re-selecting knowledge-point hints during RL training lifts average competition-math accuracy by 1.85 points at under one percent added cost.

desk verdict Honest, well-designed paper with a plausible central claim; the +1.85 average gain is not yet fully established because the static-CSS baseline is borrowed rather than retrained in the same harness. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24833 v1 pith:KF5H77DK submitted 2026-07-23 cs.AI

Zibin Meng , Zhenyu Zhao , Chunqiang Run This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords reinforcementlearningreasoningknowledgepointshintselectionentropyproxyonlineadaptationcompetitionmathematicsrewardsparsity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper takes aim at reward sparsity in reinforcement learning for competition-level mathematics, where a model rarely stumbles onto a correct answer by chance. It argues that the widespread practice of choosing which atomic knowledge-point hints to inject into each prompt, once and offline, is suboptimal: as the policy changes during training, the value of each hint shifts. AdaKP is an online selector that periodically re-chooses each problem's hint subset, scoring hints by the reduction in the model's next-token entropy they produce—a single cheap forward pass, not rollouts. The paper reports a consistent average gain of +1.85 accuracy points over the strong static baseline across eight benchmarks, with the largest gains (+3.36) on the hardest three, at added cost under one percent of a training run. It also contributes a pre-flight validation gate that checks the proxy against leave-one-out ground truth before any expensive run is launched.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the entropy proxy, which scores each candidate knowledge point k for a problem q as the average reduction in first-token Shannon entropy over the first 50 generated tokens when k is inserted into the prompt: score(q,k) = H(pi(.|q)) - H(pi(.|q⊕k)). It is computable with one short forward pass per candidate (the no-hint forward is shared), so re-scoring the whole corpus costs under one percent of a training run. A proved bound (Prop. S1) controls the truncation bias from top-L log-probability serving in terms of the realized tail mass, and a momentum smoother, a retirement-and-revival manager, and a logarithmic-backoff scheduler wrap the proxy into a stable online se

What would settle it

Retrain the static baseline from scratch in the same harness, on the same filtered data, with the same seeds and step budget, and compare against AdaKP; if a newly retrained baseline matches or beats AdaKP's 71.93 average, the central claim fails. A cheaper partial falsifier: rerun AdaKP with the entropy proxy replaced by a random scorer—the paper's ablation does this and loses 1.62 points on the Hard-3 average, but an independent reproduction would confirm the proxy is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that knowledge-point importance is not stationary over policy training, and that acting on this non-stationarity with an online selector is practical. A non-stationarity test comparing the top-hint sets of an untrained and a trained policy finds only 0.537 Jaccard similarity, well below the pre-specified 0.7 threshold. AdaKP converts this headroom into accuracy: over eight competition-math benchmarks it raises the average from 70.08 to 71.93 and the sparse-reward Hard-3 average from 49.96 to 53.32, without changing the optimizer and without using hints at inference time. The improvement concentrates exactly where reward sparsity is worst and

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the published numbers of the static baseline were produced under the same training recipe, data filtering, seeds, and compute budget as the AdaKP run; if recipe differences or checkpoint staleness contribute to the gap, the reported +1.85 average gain is not attributable to online selection alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, within-prompt content selection is a real axis for reasoning RL, distinct from prompt-level filtering and from scaling hint quantity; it can be composed with both.
AdaKP is a safe replacement for static selection in practice: no benchmark regresses in the main comparison, so there is no accuracy-redistribution trade-off.
The entropy proxy's cost profile — a few short forward passes per re-evaluation, roughly seven re-evaluations per run — makes online re-selection affordable at the 8.8k-problem corpus scale, turning a previously prohibitive operation into a routine one.
Because the proxy is defined purely on the policy's next-token distribution, the method is architecture-agnostic and should transfer to larger models and to other verifiable-reward domains; the paper itself flags a 7B replication as the natural next step.
The pre-flight validation gate gives a cheap go/no-go check that can become a routine methodological step for reasoning-RL heuristics, decoupling method-level risk from training-level cost.

Reading between the lines

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

A controlled retrain of the static baseline inside the same harness is the first test that would separate the contribution of online selection from recipe drift; the paper adopts the released checkpoint and published numbers, so its +1.85 average gain is not yet attributable to online selection alone.
If the entropy proxy is as informative as the reported ρ=0.68 suggests, the same criterion could select other discrete prompt content—few-shot examples, solution scaffolds, tool-use instructions—not just curated knowledge points, turning any prompt-side conditioning into a learnable online choice.
The frozen-proxy limitation implies the reported gains are a lower bound on what a current-policy proxy would achieve; the paper's own non-stationarity result suggests unfreezing the scorer mid-training should convert documented headroom into larger gains.
A testable extension is applying AdaKP beyond competition math to code, science, or other verifiable-reward tasks where gold solutions are available only sparsely; the method's cost structure suggests it would remain affordable.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is online subset selection of atomic knowledge points during RL training, and the paper makes a fair case that this axis was untouched. The entropy proxy with a bounded-bias proof, the pre-flight validation gate, and the additive DAPO+GRPO fork are all solid engineering and clear thinking. The authors also deserve credit for stating their limitations plainly: the proxy is frozen at base weights, so they are not actually tracking policy drift; the transfer claim is confined to 1.5B; and they explicitly flag that the improvement comes from exploring beyond CSS's one-shot choice, not from adaptation to the current policy. That is the right kind of honesty. The soft spot is the one the stress-test note names: the static-CSS baseline is the released checkpoint with published per-benchmark numbers, not a model retrained in the same verl/DAPO harness, with the same data filtering, seeds, and compute budget. Appendix E confirms that several recipe settings are fixed in their configuration but not fully recoverable from the paper text. So the +1.85 average gain and the +3.36 Hard-3 gain could be partly due to recipe differences rather than online selection per se. This is the load-bearing comparison, and it is not yet controlled. The single-seed runs and the truncated 1,500-step ablation/sweep runs (with only a pilot check that ordering matches at 2,960) add to the uncertainty, though the pilot check is at least a reasonable attempt. I would not call any of this fatal. The method is plausible, the diagnostics are informative, and the H1 non-stationarity test (Jaccard 0.537) supports the motivation. The circularity concern about H1 and the gate sharing the same LOO ground-truth family is real but mild, since the headline result is the trained accuracy gain, not the proxy ranking. The main fix is straightforward: retrain the static-CSS baseline in the same harness, run multiple seeds, and release the code. The paper already promises the code, but only upon acceptance. This deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with a request for a matched baseline and error bars, and I would be surprised if the qualitative story does not survive. For a reading group, it is worth discussion as a methodology paper rather than for the headline number. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would revisit after revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. AdaKP proposes online knowledge-point (KP) subset selection for reasoning-oriented RL. A frozen entropy proxy scores each KP by the reduction in next-token entropy; an EMA smoother, a retirement/revival manager, and an adaptive scheduler make this signal usable online, and a pre-flight Spearman gate validates the proxy against leave-one-out accuracy before training. The main comparison (Table 1) reports a +1.85 average accuracy gain over the KnowRL static-CSS baseline across eight competition-math benchmarks, including +3.36 on a Hard-3 subset, at under 1% added wall-clock cost. The paper also reports an H1 non-stationarity test, a component ablation, a hyperparameter sweep, and a selection-cost comparison.

Significance. If the headline result holds, AdaKP opens a practical axis—within-prompt, online subset selection of atomic hints—that prior adaptive-hint methods do not address. The paper's strengths are substantial: the DAPO+GRPO fork is additive and bit-identical when disabled; the entropy proxy is accompanied by a formal bounded-bias proof (Prop. S1); the validation gate is a falsifiable pre-flight check against leave-one-out ground truth; and the planned release of code, harness, and logs supports reproducibility. The methodological ideal of decoupling proxy risk from multi-GPU-day training cost is sound. However, the central empirical claim is not yet fully controlled: the static-CSS baseline is not retrained in the same harness/recipe, all runs are single-seed, and several supporting runs are truncated. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the method's potential, but they currently prevent a clean attribution of the reported gains.

major comments (4)

[§4.3, §5.2, App. E] The static-CSS baseline is the released KnowRL checkpoint with published per-benchmark numbers, not a model retrained in the same verl/DAPO harness, data-filtering pipeline, seed, and compute budget. The paper itself notes (App. E) that optimizer hyperparameters, corpus filtering, seed handling, and proxy cadence are fixed in AdaKP's configuration but not fully recoverable from the paper text. Therefore the +1.85 average and +3.36 Hard-3 gains in Table 1 cannot currently be attributed to online KP selection rather than recipe or data differences. Please retrain the static-CSS baseline under conditions identical to the AdaKP run (or otherwise provide a matched control that isolates the selection mechanism).
[§4.3, §5.6] All 17 training runs use seed 42; the headline comparison therefore has no error bars. The ablation and sweep runs are truncated at 1,500 steps against the main run's 2,960, with only a single pilot check that the ordering matches at 2,960. A single seed cannot establish the robustness of the reported gains, and truncated runs may not reflect final-condition ordering. Please report at least 2–3 seeds for the main comparison and the key ablations, and full-length runs at least for the central AdaKP-vs-static-CSS comparison.
[§5.1, App. D, §6] The H1 evidence is weaker than the presentation suggests. The global mean Jaccard is 0.537, but the only benchmark above the pre-specified 0.7 threshold (AIME25, 0.730) is dismissed as noise without a statistical test; with n=12–27 and coarse top-30% sets, the measurement has low resolution. Moreover, §6 states that the entropy proxy is frozen at base-model weights, so AdaKP does not actually track the policy drift that H1 documents. The H1 result motivates an ideal that the implemented method does not realize; the paper should more carefully separate the motivational claim from the mechanism actually evaluated, or provide evidence that the frozen-proxy re-selection is what drives the gains.
[§3.1, App. A] Prop. S1 correctly bounds the truncation bias, but the remark in App. A notes that the O(ε log|V|) bound (~0.6 nats) is larger than typical inter-KP entropy gaps, so the proposition does not guarantee rank preservation. The abstract and §1 describe a 'provable bound on its truncation bias' without this caveat; please qualify the claim so that readers do not over-interpret the theoretical guarantee.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, Eq. (2)] The estimator is called 'first-token entropy' but is an average over the first K generated positions; clarify this in the notation, and define the support of the vectors in Eq. (2).
[§4.1 vs. §4.3] §4.1 says the static-CSS checkpoint was 'reproduced locally' with the public checkpoint, while §4.3 says the baseline column uses 'published numbers' from the released checkpoint. Reconcile these statements.
[§4.4 vs. §7/Table 6] The conclusion says the gate runs in 'CPU-minutes', but Table 6 reports 25–50 GPU-hours for the LOO ground-truth pass. Please correct the cost description.
[App. A, proof of Prop. S1] In the lower-bound derivation, the inequality H2(ε) ≥ ε log(1/ε) is used without stating its range of validity; add the condition for completeness.
[Table 3 caption] The caption lacks punctuation after 'Hard-3 averages AIME25, HMMT25, CMIMC25'; consider a period or colon for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy proxy is pre-validated against leave-one-out ground truth and the headline comparison is to an external published checkpoint, not to an internally fitted baseline.

full rationale

AdaKP's derivation chain is self-contained. The entropy proxy (Eq. 1) is defined directly as a first-token entropy difference between the no-KP and KP-augmented prompts; it is not fitted to, or derived from, the leave-one-out (LOO) accuracies or the final benchmark numbers. The pre-flight gate (§4.4) only checks Spearman correlation against LOO ground truth before training is launched, and the proxy is explicitly frozen at init-time weights (§6), so there is no post-hoc fitting to the reported results. H1 (§5.1) is presented as a diagnostic of KP-importance non-stationarity; the paper candidly states that the frozen proxy cannot track this drift and that the observed gain comes from the information-theoretic criterion and exploration, not from policy-tracking. The central empirical claim (Table 1, §5.2) is a comparison against the released KnowRL static-CSS checkpoint with published numbers (§4.3, §5 'Status of the inventory'). The paper honestly flags that this baseline was not retrained in the same harness and that some recipe settings are not fully recoverable (App. E); that is an experimental control / attribution risk, not a circular reduction, since the +1.85 average gain is not implied by construction by the proxy, the gate, or any equation in the paper. There are no load-bearing self-citations (citations to KnowRL, DAPO, and verl are to external work) and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work. The mild overlap in using LOO ground truth for both the gate and H1 is a consistency choice, not a derivation of the final accuracies. Overall, the paper's derivation is independent of its inputs: hypothesis, proxy, gate, and headline evaluation form a linear, falsifiable chain rather than a circular one.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters (swept for robustness, not fit to the target results), an empirically validated but underived proxy assumption, an explicitly adopted concentration assumption in the truncation-bias proof, and the comparability of an externally published baseline. The strongest assumption is the proxy's rank-preservation, which is gated empirically rather than derived.

free parameters (6)

EMA coefficient alpha = 0.3 (default; sweep 0.1-1.0)
Hand-set; sweep moves 8-benchmark average by up to 0.91 pts (Table 5).
Selection fraction rho_sel = 0.3
Hand-set; sweep 0.2-0.4 moves average by up to 0.88 pts (Table 5).
Proxy prefix length K = 50 tokens
Hand-set; sweep 25-100 moves average by up to 0.44 pts (Table 5).
Retirement/revival hyperparameters n_retire, m_revive, r_revive = 3, 5, 0.1
Hand-set; n_retire sweep 2-5 moves average by up to 0.53 pts; m_revive/r_revive not swept (Table 5).
Scheduler hyperparameters Delta_0, c = 200, 5
Hand-set; Delta_0 sweep 100-400 moves average by up to 0.22 pts (Table 5).
Validation gate thresholds rho*, rho_min = 0.6, 0.4
Chosen go/no-go thresholds; no sensitivity analysis reported for the gate itself (Sec. 4.4).

assumptions (7)

standard math Shannon entropy chain-rule identity (H(p)=H(B)+(1-eps)H(p_S)+eps H(p_Sbar))
Used in Prop. S1 (App. A) to decompose truncation bias; a standard information-theoretic identity.
domain assumption Weak dependence of per-position conditional entropies so the finite-K average concentrates
Explicitly 'an assumption we adopt rather than prove' in App. A; needed to identify the running conditional mean with the marginal target.
domain assumption Realized tail mass eps ~ 0.05 with L=20 at T=0.7 on competition-math generations, so eps <= 1/L
Empirical condition required for the nonnegativity bound in Prop. S1; asserted in Sec. 3.1 without distributional evidence.
domain assumption First-50-token entropy reduction ranks KPs by usefulness for RL reward
Core proxy assumption; supported only by empirical Spearman rho=0.68 on 240 problems, not by derivation (Sec. 3.1, Table 4).
domain assumption The published static-CSS checkpoint and numbers are a valid control for the AdaKP run
Baseline not retrained in the same harness/seed/data-filtering; comparability assumed (Sec. 5 'Status of the inventory').
domain assumption math-verify is a correct verifier for the eight benchmarks
Reward r(o,q)=1{math-verify} is used as ground truth for RL and evaluation (Sec. 3), and its correctness underlies all reported accuracies.
ad hoc to paper Pre-specified Jaccard thresholds (0.7 strong, 0.85 reject) for the H1 decision rule
Thresholds set by the authors to interpret the non-stationarity test; AIME25's 0.730 falls in the partial-support band but is reclassified as noise (Sec. 5.1, Table S2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AdaKP: Online Adaptive Knowledge-Point Selection for Reasoning-Oriented Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF5H77DK

@misc{pith2026260724833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AdaKP: Online Adaptive Knowledge-Point Selection for Reasoning-Oriented Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF5H77DK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24833}
}

read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards is a powerful paradigm for eliciting reasoning in large language models, yet it suffers from severe reward sparsity on competition-level mathematics. A common remedy injects atomic knowledge points (KPs) - short natural-language hints distilled from gold solutions - into the prompt. Existing methods, however, either fix this selection once offline or merely scale the monolithic quantity of injected text, leaving untouched the most informative axis of choice: which subset of atomic KPs to inject, and when. We introduce AdaKP, an online selector that re-chooses each problem's KP subset over the course of RL training. At its core is an entropy proxy that scores a KP by the reduction in next-token entropy it induces - a single inexpensive forward pass, with a provable bound on its truncation bias - in place of expensive rollout-based estimation. Three lightweight mechanisms make this signal usable online: a momentum smoother that absorbs per-step noise, a retirement-and-revival manager that prunes weak KPs while preserving exploration, and an adaptive scheduler that front-loads re-evaluations into early training. AdaKP further contributes a pre-flight validation gate that certifies the proxy against a leave-one-out ground truth before any expensive run is launched, turning method-level risk into a falsifiable check. Realized as a fully additive fork of a standard DAPO+GRPO trainer with no optimizer changes, AdaKP improves over a strong static-selection baseline on all eight competition-mathematics benchmarks at negligible added cost, positioning online, validated KP-subset selection as a practical and as-yet under-explored axis for reasoning-oriented reinforcement learning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[1]

2026 , note =

Yu, Linhao and Yang, Tianmeng and Ding, Siyu and Jin, Renren and Gu, Naibin and Hao, Xiangzhao and Nie, Shuaiyi and Xiong, Deyi and Yin, Weichong and Sun, Yu and Wu, Hua , journal =. 2026 , note =

2026
[2]

2025 , note =

Yu, Qiying and Zhang, Zheng and Zhu, Ruofei and Yuan, Yufeng and Zuo, Xiaochen and Yue, Yu and Fan, Tiantian and Liu, Gaohong and Liu, Lingjun and Liu, Xin and others , journal =. 2025 , note =

2025
[3]

Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , journal =. 2024 , note =

2024
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year =

arXiv
[5]

2024 , note =

Learning to Reason with. 2024 , note =

2024
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

arXiv
[7]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[8]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Let's Verify Step by Step , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Show all 48 references

[9]

Wang, Peiyi and Li, Lei and Shao, Zhihong and Xu, R. X. and Dai, Damai and Li, Yifei and Chen, Deli and Wu, Y. and Sui, Zhifang , booktitle =. 2024 , note =

2024
[10]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[11]

, booktitle =

Zelikman, Eric and Wu, Yuhuai and Mu, Jesse and Goodman, Noah D. , booktitle =
[12]

, journal =

Zelikman, Eric and Harik, Georges and Shao, Yijia and Jayasiri, Varuna and Haber, Nick and Goodman, Noah D. , journal =
[13]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[14]

and Zhang, Hao and Stoica, Ion , booktitle =

Kwon, Woosuk and Li, Zhuohan and Zhuang, Siyuan and Sheng, Ying and Zheng, Lianmin and Yu, Cody Hao and Gonzalez, Joseph E. and Zhang, Hao and Stoica, Ion , booktitle =. Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with
[15]

2025 , note =

Sheng, Guangming and Zhang, Chi and Ye, Zilingfeng and Wu, Xibin and Zhang, Wang and Zhang, Ru and Peng, Yanghua and Lin, Haibin and Wu, Chuan , journal =. 2025 , note =

2025
[16]

2023 , note =

Zhao, Yanli and Gu, Andrew and Varma, Rohan and Luo, Liang and Huang, Chien-Chin and Xu, Min and Wright, Less and Shojanazeri, Hamid and Ott, Myle and Shleifer, Sam and others , journal =. 2023 , note =

2023
[17]

2024 , note =

Dao, Tri , journal =. 2024 , note =

2024
[18]

Kirsch, Andreas and van Amersfoort, Joost and Gal, Yarin , booktitle =
[19]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Prioritized Experience Replay , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[20]

International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year =

Curriculum Learning , author =. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year =
[21]

Liu, Ziru and Gong, Cheng and Fu, Xinyu and Liu, Yaofang and Chen, Ran and Hu, Shoubo and Zhang, Suiyun and Liu, Rui and Zhang, Qingfu and Tu, Dandan , journal =
[22]

Don't Tell the Answer, Truly Guide the Reasoning During

Wang, Xinyi and Han, Jinyi and Jiang, Zishang and Li, Tingyun and Liang, Jiaqing and Jiang, Sihang and Dai, Zhaoqian and Ma, Shuguang and Yu, Fei and Xiao, Yanghua , journal =. Don't Tell the Answer, Truly Guide the Reasoning During
[23]

Zhang, Feng and Tan, Zezhong and Ma, Xinhong and Dong, Ziqiang and Leng, Xi and Zhao, Jianfei and Sun, Xin and Yang, Yang , journal =
[24]

Zhang, Kaiyi and Lv, Ang and Li, Jinpeng and Wang, Yongbo and Wang, Feng and Hu, Haoyuan and Yan, Rui , journal =
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06923 , year =

Staying in the Sweet Spot: Responsive Reasoning Evolution via Capability-Adaptive Hint Scaffolding , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06923 , year =

arXiv
[26]

Boosting

Huang, Qihan and Dai, Weilong and Liu, Jinlong and He, Wanggui and Jiang, Hao and Song, Mingli and Chen, Jingyuan and Yao, Chang and Song, Jie , booktitle =. Boosting
[27]

Train at Moving Edge: Online-Verified Prompt Selection for Efficient

Wu, Jiahao and Lu, Ning and Liu, Shengcai and Wang, Kun and Yang, Yanting and Lin, Bailong and Zhang, Chen Jason and Li, Qing and Tang, Ke , journal =. Train at Moving Edge: Online-Verified Prompt Selection for Efficient
[28]

Xiong, Wei and Ye, Chenlu and Liao, Baohao and Dong, Hanze and Xu, Xinxing and Monz, Christof and Bian, Jiang and Jiang, Nan and Zhang, Tong , journal =
[29]

Li, Jiazheng and others , journal =
[30]

He, Chaoqun and Luo, Renjie and Bai, Yuzhuo and Hu, Shengding and Thai, Zhen Leng and Shen, Junhao and Hu, Jinyi and Han, Xu and Huang, Yujie and Zhang, Yuxiang and Liu, Jie and Qi, Lei and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , journal =
[31]

Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the

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

2021
[32]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , year =

Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , year =

arXiv
[33]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[34]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[35]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[36]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[37]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[38]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[39]

Back to Basics: Revisiting

Ahmadian, Arash and Cremer, Chris and Gall. Back to Basics: Revisiting. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , year =
[40]

2024 , note =

Ethayarajh, Kawin and Xu, Winnie and Muennighoff, Niklas and Jurafsky, Dan and Kiela, Douwe , booktitle =. 2024 , note =

2024
[41]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Learning to Summarize from Human Feedback , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =
[42]

Reinforced Self-Training (

Gulcehre, Caglar and Le Paine, Tom and Srinivasan, Srivatsan and Konyushkova, Ksenia and Weerts, Lotte and Sharma, Abhishek and Siddhant, Aditya and Ahern, Alex and Wang, Miaosen and Gu, Chenjie and Macherey, Wolfgang and Doucet, Arnaud and Firat, Orhan and de Freitas, Nando ,...
[43]

Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR) , year =

Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Models , author =. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR) , year =
[44]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04642 , year =

Teaching Large Language Models to Reason with Reinforcement Learning , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04642 , year =

arXiv
[45]

2016 , note =

Houthooft, Rein and Chen, Xi and Duan, Yan and Schulman, John and De Turck, Filip and Abbeel, Pieter , booktitle =. 2016 , note =

2016
[46]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =
[47]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

arXiv
[48]

He, Bingxiang and Qu, Zekai and Liu, Zeyuan and Chen, Yinghao and Zuo, Yuxin and Qian, Cheng and Zhang, Kaiyan and Chen, Weize and Xiao, Chaojun and Cui, Ganqu and Ding, Ning and Liu, Zhiyuan , journal =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2026 , note =

Yu, Linhao and Yang, Tianmeng and Ding, Siyu and Jin, Renren and Gu, Naibin and Hao, Xiangzhao and Nie, Shuaiyi and Xiong, Deyi and Yin, Weichong and Sun, Yu and Wu, Hua , journal =. 2026 , note =

2026

[2] [2]

2025 , note =

Yu, Qiying and Zhang, Zheng and Zhu, Ruofei and Yuan, Yufeng and Zuo, Xiaochen and Yue, Yu and Fan, Tiantian and Liu, Gaohong and Liu, Lingjun and Liu, Xin and others , journal =. 2025 , note =

2025

[3] [3]

Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , journal =. 2024 , note =

2024

[4] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year =

arXiv

[5] [5]

2024 , note =

Learning to Reason with. 2024 , note =

2024

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 , year =

arXiv

[7] [7]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

[8] [8]

International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

Let's Verify Step by Step , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =