Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

MC-NEST: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models leveraging a Monte Carlo Self-Refine Tree

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that MC-NEST, a Monte Carlo tree search with runtime self-critique and probabilistic node selection, lifts GPT-4o's pass@1 from 33.3 to 38.6 on the AIME benchmark.

desk verdict MC-NEST's only new mechanism is a no-op in its own equations, and the headline results are test-set maxima with internal contradictions; the paper is a useful cautionary tale, not a validated method. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15645 v2 pith:X7V3QW7I submitted 2024-11-23 cs.LG

Gollam Rabby , Farhana Keya , Sören Auer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords mathematicalreasoninglargelanguagemodelsMonteCarlotreesearchself-refinementself-evaluationimportancesamplingOlympiadbenchmarkspass@1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces MC-NEST, a Monte Carlo Tree Search extension in which a large language model critiques and refines its own candidate solutions inside a search tree, with node selection guided by Upper Confidence Bound scores combined with probability-distribution policies. The central claim is that this search procedure substantially improves GPT-4o's pass@1 on Olympiad-level mathematics, reaching 38.6 on AIME and 12.6 on MathOdyssey, compared with 33.3 for zero-shot chain-of-thought on AIME. The method extracts more reasoning ability from an existing LLM at inference time, without fine-tuning, by balancing exploration of alternative solution paths against exploitation of promising refinements. The paper also reports that the benefit is concentrated in structured, multi-step problems like AIME, while simpler prompting still wins on intuition-driven MathOdyssey problems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the integration of probability-distribution policies into the UCT selection rule of a self-refining tree search. In MC-NEST, node selection first collects candidate nodes via breadth-first traversal, then scores each node as $Q(i) + C\sqrt{\ln(N_{\text{parent}})/(N(i)+\epsilon)} + 1/n$, where the added $1/n$ term is the uniform probability over the $n$ candidates; the importance-sampling variant turns the product of UCT score and probability into sampling weights. This probabilistic twist is meant to prevent the search from fixating on a locally optimal solution and to keep less-visited branches in play. The other load-bearing component is the LLM self-refine and self-evaluation loop, which generates a critique of the current answer, produces a refined answer, and assigns a reward that is backpropagated as $Q(n_p) = (Q(n_p) + \max Q(n_c))/2$.

What would settle it

Re-run MC-NEST on a fresh set of 150 AIME problems using only the rollout-4 importance-sampling configuration, without having seen those problems during configuration selection, and check whether pass@1 still exceeds the 33.3 zero-shot chain-of-thought baseline; if it does not, the reported gain is an artifact of test-set tuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the paper tries to establish is that adding probabilistic node selection and iterative LLM self-critique to a Monte Carlo tree makes the underlying language model a better mathematical reasoner on hard, structured problems. Concretely, MC-NEST builds a tree whose nodes are candidate answers; at each step an LLM critiques the current answer, produces a refined version, scores it with a reward prompt, and backpropagates the score to update quality values and visit counts. The selection step filters candidate nodes by breadth-first search and then picks a node through one of three policies that blend the UCT score with a uniform probability over candidates, with importance sampling performing best. On the 150-problem AIME test set, the method with GPT-4o solves 58 problems at rollout 4, corresponding to a pass@1 of 38.6, which the paper reports as the highest among the compared prompting and tree-search baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that choosing the rollout length and selection policy after trying all configurations on the same test problems gives an honest estimate of the method's performance, even though the reported scores are the best results from that grid search.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, any sufficiently capable LLM can be pushed toward higher Olympiad-math accuracy purely at inference time by wrapping it in a search-and-critique loop, with no training or prompt engineering per problem.
  • The result implies that larger base models amplify the benefit of tree search: GPT-4o gains 5.3 points over zero-shot chain-of-thought on AIME, while Phi-3-mini gains about 6 points in the same comparison and Mistral 7B solves no problems at all.
  • Because the best rollout length differs sharply between datasets (4 for AIME, 24 for MathOdyssey), deploying MC-NEST in practice requires choosing the search budget per task type, not a single universal setting.
  • The paper's own numbers show the method is not a general reasoning cure: on MathOdyssey, MC-NEST at 13.3 pass@1 trails plain zero-shot chain-of-thought at 16.6, so the expected gain is specific to formal, multi-step deduction problems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline pass@1 figures are maxima over a grid of nine rollout lengths and three selection policies all evaluated on the same 150-problem test sets, so a fair estimate of true performance would require a validation split or a report of the full grid; the reported numbers are upper bounds rather than unbiased predictions.
  • The abstract's MathOdyssey figure of 12.6 does not match the results section, which reports 13.3 pass@1 and 20 solved problems; a reader should resolve this discrepancy before relying on the exact number.
  • A natural extension the paper does not test is whether the same probabilistic selection policies help on other structured reasoning domains such as formal logic or code generation, since the method's stated value is generic inference-time search rather than math-specific knowledge.
  • The quality-check scores (84.0% for GPT-4o and 82.08% for Phi-3-mini) come from GPT-4o evaluating its own solutions against human solutions; an independent human rating would be needed to confirm that the consistency claim is not an artifact of self-evaluation bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MC-NEST, an extension of Monte Carlo Tree Self-Refine (MCTSr) for mathematical reasoning with LLMs. The method adds a uniform probability term to UCT-based node selection, together with Greedy, Importance Sampling, and Pairwise Importance Sampling policies, and uses LLM self-critique, self-refinement, and self-evaluation to guide tree search. Experiments on 150 AIME and 150 MathOdyssey problems with GPT-4o, Phi-3-mini, and Mistral-7B report pass@1 improvements, with the abstract claiming state-of-the-art pass@1 of 38.6 on AIME and 12.6 on MathOdyssey. The paper also includes a domain/difficulty analysis, a GPT-4o-based solution-quality evaluation, and appendix material labeled as proofs of two hypotheses.

Significance. If the reported results were reproducible under a sound evaluation protocol, MC-NEST would be a useful incremental contribution to inference-time search for LLM reasoning. The paper has several strengths: a clearly described three-stage self-refine tree pipeline (Algorithm 1 and Figure 3), a sizable 300-problem Olympiad-level evaluation set with human-verified domain/difficulty labels (Table 1), a systematic grid of rollout lengths and selection policies (Tables 2–3), and an explicit limitations section that identifies missing baselines and known failure modes. However, the headline results are not currently supported by the evidence: the reported pass@1 values are maxima over configurations tuned on the test set, the numbers are internally inconsistent across the abstract, table, and figure, and the proposed probability-distribution mechanism is mathematically inert as written, which removes the claimed distinction from MCTSr. The quality evaluation is also circular in that GPT-4o grades GPT-4o solutions without human-rater agreement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 0.11, Tables 2–3 and Table 8] The headline AIME result is obtained by running all 27 combinations of 9 rollout lengths and 3 selection policies on the same 150-problem test set and then selecting the best configuration (58/150 at rollout 4 with IS; Table 2), and the MathOdyssey result is selected similarly (20/150 at rollout 24 with IS; Table 3). No held-out validation set, repeated runs, or error bars are reported, so the pass@1 values in Table 4 and the Abstract are test-set maxima and therefore upper bounds, not unbiased estimates of MC-NEST's performance. The ambiguity is compounded by Table 8, which attributes the AIME 58/150 result to rollout 16 with IS rather than rollout 4, so even the selected configuration is not reported consistently.
  2. [Abstract, Summary, Table 4, Results, Figure 2] The paper's central numbers are internally inconsistent. The Abstract and Summary report a MathOdyssey pass@1 of 12.6 (19/150), while Table 4 and the Results text report 13.3 (20/150) and Figure 2 plots 20 solved problems. For Phi-3-mini on AIME, Table 2 reports MC-NEST solving 12 problems, Table 4 reports a pass@1 of 7.33 (11/150), and Table 8 reports 11 solved problems; the MCTSr column similarly alternates between 11 and 7.33. These contradictions make it impossible to verify which numbers are the results of record.
  3. [Section 0.3–0.4, UCT update equations] The proposed probability-distribution integration is a mathematical no-op as written. In the UCT update, adding 1/n to every candidate's score cannot change the argmax over the candidate set. In the Importance Sampling policy, Weight(i)=UCT(i)*π(ai) with π(ai)=1/n, and the normalized sampling probability Weight(i)/ΣWeight(j)=UCT(i)/ΣUCT(j), so the uniform factor cancels exactly. In Pairwise Importance Sampling, the pair weight |UCT(i)-UCT(j)|·(1/n)^2 is multiplied by a constant for all pairs, so the relative ordering of pairs is also unchanged. Consequently, the claimed mechanism that distinguishes MC-NEST from MCTSr (uniform probability integration) is absent from the equations; the differences between the MCTSr and MC-NEST rows in Tables 2–3 therefore cannot be attributed to the new selection strategy as described.
  4. [Limitations, Table 4, Section 0.13 and Table 6] The paper's own claims of state-of-the-art performance are not supported by the evidence it presents. The Limitations section acknowledges that structurally aligned baselines (CoT, PoT, ToT) are not compared, and Table 4 shows that on MathOdyssey ZSCoT (16.6) outperforms MC-NEST (13.3), so the Abstract's blanket phrase 'highest pass@1 on Olympic-level benchmarks' is misleading. In addition, the quality scores in Table 6 are produced by GPT-4o evaluating GPT-4o-generated solutions, with no human-rater agreement or independent verification reported, so the 84.0%/82.08% quality numbers are not established as reliable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Greesy' should be 'Greedy'; the table also mixes percentages and raw counts without a clear convention.
  2. [Section 0.11] Pass@1 is defined as the fraction of problems solved 'on the first attempt,' but MC-NEST returns the node with the highest Q value after multiple rollouts; the definition should be clarified to reflect that the result is a best-of-search answer, not a single autoregressive sample.
  3. [Section 0.6] The backpropagation formula Q(np) = (Q(np) + max(Q(nc)))/2 is said to apply 'for each parent node,' but as written it describes only one immediate update; the order of ancestor updates and the stopping condition at the root should be specified.
  4. [Figure 2] The y-axis is unlabeled and the figure mixes numbers of solved problems with pass@1 percentages; the reader cannot tell whether the plotted values are 58, 20 (counts) or 38.6, 13.3 (percentages).
  5. [Appendix, Hypothesis 1 Proof] The appendix presents equations labeled as a proof, but there is no theorem statement, no derivation from Algorithm 1, and constants λ, α, β, γ, Vmax are never defined or instantiated; it should be rewritten as a formal statement with assumptions and a proof, or removed.
  6. [References] References [19] and [46] are duplicates of the Tree-of-Thought paper, and [33] and [43] are duplicates of the GPT-4 technical report; this should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed probability-distribution mechanism cancels out of every selection equation by construction, and the headline pass@1 is a maximum over the test-set rollout grid rather than an unbiased prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 0.3 'Probability Distribution Strategy for Node Selection' and Section 0.4 'Upper Confidence Bound (UCT) Update', equations for pi(ai) and UCT(i)]
    "pi(ai) = 1/n for all i ... This uniform distribution is then integrated with the UCT scores to guide final node selection. ... UCT(i) = Q(i) + C sqrt(ln(Nparent)/(N(i)+epsilon)) + 1/n"

    Because pi(ai)=1/n is the same constant for every candidate node, adding it to every UCT score cannot change the argmax in Greedy Policy. In Importance Sampling, Weight(i)=UCT(i)*pi(ai)=UCT(i)/n, so the common factor 1/n cancels in normalized sampling probabilities. In Pairwise Importance Sampling, pi(ai)*pi(aj)=1/n^2 is a common factor and the winner is the higher UCT. Thus the 'probability distribution integration' that the paper credits with balancing exploration/exploitation and preventing bias is by construction identical to plain UCT selection (or UCT-weighted sampling). The novelty claim 'Probability Distribution Integration' is therefore a relabeling of the UCT score it is added to, not a new mechanism.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 0.11 'Rollout Selection', Tables 2-3, Table 4, and Results]
    "rollouts were performed at intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 36 iterations. This approach was used to select the optimal rollout strategy for MC-NEST ... On the AIME dataset, GPT -4o achieves its best performance with a rollout of 4 using the Importance Sampling policy, solving 58 problems, while on MathOdyssey, a rollout of 24 with the same policy yields the highest performance, solving 20 problems."

    Pass@1 is computed on the same 150-problem AIME and MathOdyssey test sets after sweeping all combinations of 9 rollout lengths and 3 selection policies and taking the maximum solved count (AIME 58 at rollout 4 IS; MathOdyssey 20 at rollout 24 IS). Table 4 then reports these maxima as MC-NEST's pass@1 (38.6 and 13.3). This is not a prediction of unseen test performance; it is a test-set maximum over 27 configurations, so the reported pass@1 is an upper bound by construction rather than an unbiased estimate of the method's accuracy.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: MCTSr is an external baseline (Zhang et al. 2024), and the pass@1 labels come from fixed AIME/MathOdyssey answers. However, two construction-level reductions make the central claim partially circular. First, the paper's advertised contribution, 'Probability Distribution Integration,' is defined with uniform pi(ai)=1/n and then added or multiplied into UCT scores; because the term is a constant across candidates, every stated selection policy reduces to plain UCT selection (or UCT-proportional random sampling), so any 'improvement' attributed to this mechanism is not produced by the equations in Sections 0.3-0.4. Second, the rollout length and selection policy are chosen by maximizing solved problems on the very 150-problem test sets whose pass@1 is then reported as the headline result; this is fitted-input-as-prediction. Additional internal inconsistencies (abstract MathOdyssey 12.6 vs Table 4's 13.3; Table 8 saying rollout 16 with IS instead of Table 4's rollout 4 with IS for the AIME 58) are correctness/verifiability problems rather than circularity per se. The appendix 'proofs' restate the algorithm's definitions and do not establish the hypotheses, but they are not load-bearing for the empirical comparison. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim relies on unspecified hyperparameters, on LLM self-evaluation as a reward signal, and on test-set-fitted rollout choices. The appendix proofs introduce unvalued constants and do not derive the claimed properties.

free parameters (8)
  • UCT exploration constant C
    Controls exploration-exploitation in the UCT score (Section 0.4); no value or tuning procedure is given.
  • epsilon in UCT denominator
    Small constant to avoid division by zero in UCT formula (Section 0.4); value unspecified.
  • rollout count N (iterations) = 4 for AIME GPT-4o, 24 for MathOdyssey GPT-4o, 4 for Phi-3-mini
    Selected by evaluating 4,8,...,36 on the same test sets and taking the best per dataset (Tables 2-3); this is a fitted value.
  • node selection policy = Importance Sampling for AIME GPT-4o; Importance Sampling for MathOdyssey (rollout 24); Greedy for Phi-3-mini MathOdyssey
    Also selected per dataset from Greedy, IS, and PIS by test performance (Tables 2-3).
  • reward limit
    Threshold in self-evaluation after which a penalty is applied (Algorithm 1, Section 0.8); value unspecified.
  • excess reward penalty
    Applied when reward exceeds reward limit (Section 0.8); value unspecified.
  • maximum children per node
    Determines when a node is fully expanded (Section 0.2); value unspecified.
  • appendix constants lambda, alpha, beta, gamma, Vmax
    Appear in the proofs (Appendix 1.1) but are never given values or connected to the implemented algorithm.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The LLM's self-evaluation reward correlates with mathematical correctness of the candidate answer.
    The backpropagation and final node selection in Algorithm 1 rely on reward R_n from the LLM; if rewards are noisy or biased, the tree search is misdirected. Invoked throughout Section 0.8.
  • domain assumption The critique-and-refine loop strictly improves or at least does not degrade solution quality on the tested problems.
    MC-NEST's expansion step assumes SelfRefine(n_s) produces a better answer; the paper provides no ablation isolating this effect (promised in Appendix Hypothesis 2 but not run).
  • domain assumption The 150-problem subsets of AIME and MathOdyssey are representative samples of Olympiad-level problems.
    Dataset construction in the Dataset section says the authors selected 150 problems per benchmark with available human solutions and plan to expand; no sampling procedure or inclusion criteria are given.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding a uniform probability term 1/n to the UCT score changes node selection behavior.
    Sections 0.3 and 0.4 claim this promotes fairness, but a constant added to all candidate scores cannot change the argmax in the Greedy policy and only rescales weights in importance sampling.
  • ad hoc to paper The Hypothesis 1 Proof utility function is a valid model of node-selection dynamics.
    Appendix 1.1 defines Utility with constants lambda and alpha and asserts game-theoretic stability without proof; this is not used in the main method.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o's domain and difficulty classification of problems is accurate after human verification.
    Section 0.9 Data Categories relies on GPT-4o labels cross-checked by humans, but no agreement metrics or verification detail are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MC-NEST: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models leveraging a Monte Carlo Self-Refine Tree." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7V3QW7I

@misc{pith2026241115645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MC-NEST: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models leveraging a Monte Carlo Self-Refine Tree},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7V3QW7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15645}
}
read the original abstract

Mathematical reasoning presents significant challenges for large language models (LLMs). To enhance their capabilities, we propose Monte Carlo Self-Refine Tree (MC-NEST), an extension of Monte Carlo Tree Search that integrates LLM-based self-refinement and self-evaluation for improved decision-making in complex reasoning tasks. MC-NEST balances exploration and exploitation using Upper Confidence Bound (UCT) scores combined with diverse selection policies. Through iterative critique and refinement, LLMs learn to reason more strategically. Empirical results demonstrate that MC-NEST with an importance sampling policy substantially improves GPT-4o's performance, achieving state-of-the-art pass@1 scores on Olympiad-level benchmarks. Specifically, MC-NEST attains a pass@1 of 38.6 on AIME and 12.6 on MathOdyssey. The solution quality for MC-NEST using GPT-4o and Phi-3-mini reaches 84.0\% and 82.08\%, respectively, indicating robust consistency across different LLMs. MC-NEST performs strongly across Algebra, Geometry, and Number Theory, benefiting from its ability to handle abstraction, logical deduction, and multi-step reasoning -- core skills in mathematical problem solving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15645 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of problem-solving across different prompting techniques, MCTSr and MC-NEST with GPT-4o for AIME and MathOdyssey Datasets. • Dynamic Decision Policies: Diverse strategies, such as Importance Sampling and Pairwise Importance Sampling, allow adaptive navigation across problem landscapes. • Iterative Self-Refinement: Through iterative self-evaluation and refinement, MC-NEST im￾proves LLM outputs for complex … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of the Monte Carlo Self-Refine Tree (MC-NEST) framework, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Several MC-NEST processing steps for the problem: Let [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Step-level Verifier-guided Hybrid Test-Time Scaling for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A step-level verifier-guided hybrid of Best-of-N sampling, Monte Carlo tree search, and conditional self-refinement improves reasoning in small instruction-tuned LLMs, claiming up to 28.6-point gains.

  2. A Survey of Deep Learning for Geometry Problem Solving

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey organizes deep learning work on geometry problem solving into task, method, benchmark, and evaluation categories, and highlights open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., Hesse, C., and Schulman, J. (2021). Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR abs/2110.14168. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168. arXiv:2110.14168

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. (2021). Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. vol. abs/2103.03874. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03874. arXiv:2103.03874

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Fu, Y ., Peng, H., Sabharwal, A., Clark, P ., and Khot, T. (2023). Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. URL: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=yf1icZHC-l9

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F ., Chi, E.H., Le, Q.V., and Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3600270.3602070

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Wan, Z., Feng, X., Wen, M., McAleer, S.M., Wen, Y ., Zhang, W., and Wang, J. (2024). Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=C4OpREezgj

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Pitanov, Y ., Skrynnik, A., Andreychuk, A., Y akovlev, K.S., and Panov, A. (2023). Monte- carlo tree search for multi-agent pathfinding: Preliminary results. In P .G. Bringas, H.P . Garc´ıa, de F .J.M. Pis ´on, F . Mart ´ınez- ´Alvarez, A.T. Lora, ´A. Herrero, J.L. Calvo-Rolle, H. Quinti´an, and E. Corchado, eds. Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems - 18...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Du, Y ., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J.B., and Mordatch, I. (2024). Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. URL: https://openreview. net/forum?id=zj7YuTE4t8

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Luo, H., Sun, Q., Xu, C., Zhao, P ., Lou, J., Tao, C., Geng, X., Lin, Q., Chen, S., and Zhang, D. (2023). Wizardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. CoRR abs/2308.09583. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2308.09583. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2308.09583. arXiv:2308.09583

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.09583 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, D., Huang, X., Zhou, D., Li, Y ., and Ouyang, W. (2024). Accessing GPT -4 level mathematical olympiad solutions via monte carlo tree self-refine with llama-3 8b. CoRR abs/2406.07394. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.07394. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2406.07394. arXiv:...

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kojima, T., Gu, S.S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y ., and Iwasawa, Y . (2022). Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3600270.3601883

    2022

  3. [11]

    Zamil, P ., and Rabby, G. (2024). Aime problems 1983 to 2024. Kaggle. URL: https: //www.kaggle.com/dsv/8834060. doi: 10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/8834060. 17

    2024

  4. [12]

    Fang, M., Wan, X., Lu, F ., Xing, F ., and Zou, K. (2024). Mathodyssey: Benchmark- ing mathematical problem-solving skills in large language models using odyssey math data. CoRR abs/2406.18321. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18321. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18321. arX...

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Wu, Y ., Alayrac, J., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A.M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., Silver, D., Petrov, S., Johnson, M., Antonoglou, I., Schrittwieser, J., Glaese, A., Chen, J., Pitler, E., Lillicrap, T.P ., Lazaridou, A., Firat, O., Molloy, J...

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P ., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y ., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P ., Bhosale, S., Bikel, D., Blecher, L., Canton-Ferrer, C., Chen, M., Cucu- rull, G., Esiobu, D., Fernandes, J., Fu, J., Fu, W., Fuller, B., Gao, C., Goswami, V., ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C.J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrit- twieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., Dieleman, S., Grewe, D., Nham, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Sutskever, I., Lillicrap, T.P ., Leach, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Grae- pel,...

    2016 doi

  8. [17]

    Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., Chen, Y ., Lillicrap, T.P ., Hui, F ., Sifre, L., van den Driess- che, G., Graepel, T., and Hassabis, D. (2017). Mastering the game of go without hu- m...

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    Swiechowski, M., Godlewski, K., Sawicki, B., and Mandziuk, J. (2023). Monte carlo tree search: a review of recent modifications and applications. Artif. Intell. Rev. 56, 2497–2562. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10228-y . doi: 10.1007/ S10462-022-10228-Y

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    Y ao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y ., and Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, eds. Advances in Neural 18 Information ...

    2023

  11. [20]

    Hao, S., Gu, Y ., Ma, H., Hong, J.J., Wang, Z., Wang, D.Z., and Hu, Z. (2023). Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. pp. 8154–8173. URL: https://doi. org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.507. doi: 10.18653/V1/2023.EMNLP-MAIN.507

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Y ang, F . (2023). An integrated framework integrating monte carlo tree search and super- vised learning for train timetabling problem. CoRR abs/2311.00971. URL: https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.00971. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.00971. arXiv:2311.00971

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    Li, A., Han, C., Guo, T., Li, H., and Li, B. (2023). General method for solving four types of SAT problems. CoRR abs/2312.16423. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.16423. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2312.16423. arXiv:2312.16423

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    Vagadia, H., Chopra, M., Barnawal, A., Banerjee, T., Tuli, S., Chakraborty, S., and Paul, R. (2024). Phyplan: Compositional and adaptive physical task reasoning with physics-informed skill networks for robot manipulators. CoRR abs/2402.15767. URL: https://doi.org/10. 48550/arX...

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Chen, G., Liao, M., Li, C., and Fan, K. (2024). Alphamath almost zero: process supervision without process. CoRR abs/2405.03553. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405. 03553. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2405.03553. arXiv:2405.03553

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    Xu, H. (2023). No train still gain. unleash mathematical reasoning of large language mod- els with monte carlo tree search guided by energy function. CoRR abs/2309.03224. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.03224. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2309.03224. arXiv:2309.03224

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    Dubois, Y ., Li, C.X., Taori, R., Zhang, T., Gulrajani, I., Ba, J., Guestrin, C., Liang, P ., and Hashimoto, T.B. (2023). Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3666122.3667430

    2023

  18. [27]

    Goli, A., and Singh, A. (2024). Frontiers: Can large language models capture human pref- erences? Mark. Sci. 43, 709–722. URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0306. doi: 10.1287/MKSC.2023.0306

    2024

  19. [28]

    Mitchell, M., Palmarini, A.B., and Moskvichev, A. (2023). Comparing humans, gpt-4, and GPT -4V on abstraction and reasoning tasks. CoRR abs/2311.09247. URL: https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.09247. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.09247. arXiv:2311.09247

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Zeng, Z., Yu, J., Gao, T., Meng, Y ., Goyal, T., and Chen, D. (2024). Evaluating large lan- guage models at evaluating instruction following. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net. URL: h...

    2024

  21. [30]

    Luo, L., Lin, Z., Liu, Y ., Shu, L., Zhu, Y ., Shang, J., and Meng, L. (2023). Critique ability of large language models. CoRR abs/2310.04815. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2310.04815. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2310.04815. arXiv:2310.04815

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    Ong, K.T., Kwon, T., and Y eo, J. (2024). Large language models are self-taught rea- soners: Enhancing LLM applications via tailored problem-solving demonstrations. CoRR abs/2408.12315. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12315. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2408.12315. arXiv:2408...

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Saunders, W., Y eh, C., Wu, J., Bills, S., Ouyang, L., Ward, J., and Leike, J. (2022). Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators. CoRR abs/2206.05802. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.05802. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2206.05802. arXiv:2206.05802

    2022 doi arXiv

  24. [34]

    Jiang, A.Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D.S., de Las Casas, D., Bressand, F ., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., Lavaud, L.R., Lachaux, M., Stock, P ., Scao, T.L., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., and Sayed, W.E. (2023). Mis- tral 7b. CoRR abs/2...

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [36]

    Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V.Y ., Guu, K., Yu, A.W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A.M., and Le, Q.V. (2022). Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. URL: https://openreview. net/forum?id=gEZrGCozdqR

    2022

  26. [37]

    Patel, A., Li, B., Rasooli, M.S., Constant, N., Raffel, C., and Callison-Burch, C. (2023). Bidirectional language models are also few-shot learners. URL: https://openreview.net/ forum?id=wCFB37bzud4

    2023

  27. [38]

    Lewis, P .S.H., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F ., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., K¨uttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rockt ¨aschel, T., Riedel, S., and Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented gen- eration for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/ 34...

    2020

  28. [39]

    Douze, M., Guzhva, A., Deng, C., Johnson, J., Szilvasy, G., Mazar ´e, P ., Lomeli, M., Hosseini, L., and J ´egou, H. (2024). The faiss library. CoRR abs/2401.08281. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.08281. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.08281. arXiv:2401.08281

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [40]

    Johnson, J., Douze, M., and J ´egou, H. (2021). Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Trans. Big Data7, 535–547. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2921572. doi: 10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2921572

    2021

  30. [41]

    Meng, R., Liu, Y ., Joty, S.R., Xiong, C., Zhou, Y ., and Y avuz, S. (2024). Sfrembedding- mistral: enhance text retrieval with transfer learning. Salesforce AI Research Blog 3. 20

    2024

  31. [42]

    Learning to reason with LLMs

    OpenAI (2024). Learning to reason with LLMs. . URL: https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/

    2024

  32. [43]

    GPT -4 technical report

    OpenAI (2023). GPT -4 technical report. CoRR abs/2303.08774. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774. arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [44]

    Abdin, M.I., Jacobs, S.A., Awan, A.A., Aneja, J., Awadallah, A., Awadalla, H., Bach, N., Bahree, A., Bakhtiari, A., Behl, H.S., Benhaim, A., Bilenko, M., Bjorck, J., Bubeck, S., Cai, M., Mendes, C.C.T., Chen, W., Chaudhary, V., Chopra, P ., Giorno, A.D., de Rosa, G., Dixon, M....

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [45]

    Chen, W., Ma, X., Wang, X., and Cohen, W.W. (2022). Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588

    2022 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Y ao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y ., and Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 11809–11822

    2023

  36. [47]

    Zhong, T., Liu, Z., Pan, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Zhou, Y ., Liang, S., Wu, Z., Lyu, Y ., Shu, P ., Yu, X., Cao, C., Jiang, H., Chen, H., Li, Y ., Chen, J., Hu, H., Liu, Y ., Zhao, H., Xu, S., Dai, H., Zhao, L., Zhang, R., Zhao, W., Y ang, Z., Chen, J., Wang, P ., Ruan, W., Wang, H., ...

    2024 doi

  37. [48]

    thought":

    Guo, D., Y ang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P ., Bi, X. et al. (2025). Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948. 21 1 Appendix 1.1 Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Probabi...

    2025 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Comparison of completeness for Human and MC-NEST solutions

    **Completeness (100 points)**: Assess whether all necessary steps are included and logically connected. Comparison of completeness for Human and MC-NEST solutions

  39. [50]

    Comparison of clarity for Human and MC-NEST solutions

    **Clarity (100 points)**: Check if the explanation and notation are easy to follow and unambiguous. Comparison of clarity for Human and MC-NEST solutions

  40. [51]

    Comparison of optimality for Human and MC-NEST solutions

    **Optimality (100 points)**: Measures the efficiency and elegance of the solution. Comparison of optimality for Human and MC-NEST solutions

  41. [52]

    Comparison of mathematical rigor for Human and MC-NEST solutions

    **Mathematical Rigor (100 points)**: Verifies if all assumptions, justifications, and definitions are stated explicitly and appropriately. Comparison of mathematical rigor for Human and MC-NEST solutions. ### Inputs:

  42. [53]

    Insert human-generated solution here

    **Human Solution**: "Insert human-generated solution here."

  43. [54]

    Insert LLM-generated MC-NEST solution here

    **MC-NEST Solution**: "Insert LLM-generated MC-NEST solution here." ### Output Format: Return the evaluation scores and comparison summary as a JSON object in the following structure: { "Scores": { "MC-NEST Solution": { "Completeness": score, "Clarity": score, "Optimality": sc...

  44. [55]

    The average (arithmetic mean) of the numbers in S is 56

    What is the largest number that can appear in S? 29 Math do- main Problem Output ZS ZSCoT MC- NEST Number Theory Let S be a list of positive integers not necessarily distinct in which the number 68 appears. The average (arithmetic mean) of the numbers in S is 56. However, if 6...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.