Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims a Scaling Law by Difficulty for LLM math reasoning: performance is U-shaped in training-data difficulty, so flooding a model with easy generated problems degrades hard-benchmark accuracy, while high-difficulty data builds p

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

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

Training on easy synthetic math data lowers accuracy on hard benchmarks, and the proposed SST framework, which teaches explicit procedural chains, aims to reverse that drop.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful method paper with an overclaimed 'Scaling Law by Difficulty' that is not supported by the evidence; the SST framework itself deserves attention. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19069 v1 pith:ZUHVF4HZ submitted 2025-08-26 cs.AI

Can Structured Templates Facilitate LLMs in Tackling Harder Tasks? : An Exploration of Scaling Laws by Difficulty

Zhichao Yang , Zhaoxin Fan , Gen Li , Yuanze Hu , Xinyu Wang , Ye Qiu , Xin Wang , Yifan Sun
show 1 more author
Wenjun Wu
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords scaling law by difficultystructured solution templatesprocedural reasoningmathematical reasoningsynthetic datacurriculum fine-tuningchain-of-thoughtGRPO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish a 'Scaling Law by Difficulty' for mathematical reasoning in LLMs: model performance follows a U-shaped curve in training-data complexity. The authors show that fine-tuning on large volumes of template-generated synthetic problems—which they demonstrate are much easier than their parent problems—steadily lowers accuracy on hard contests like AIME24, while a much smaller set of curated high-difficulty problems sharply raises it. This matters because the field's default remedy for weak reasoning is to generate more synthetic data; on the paper's account, the difficulty of that data, not its volume, is the controlling variable. Building on the law, the paper proposes the Structured Solution Template (SST) framework—explicit procedural chains, weighted loss emphasis, prompt-time chain injection, and a plan–execute–self-correct curriculum trained with GRPO—and reports accuracy and efficiency gains across seven benchmarks, largest on the hardest problems. If the law holds, data scaling for reasoning should be redesigned around difficulty curation rather than sheer quantity.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that for math reasoning, more training data is not automatically better: performance on challenging benchmarks follows a U-shaped curve as a function of training-data difficulty. When the authors fine-tuned a 1.5B reasoning model on up to 100k template-generated synthetic problems, AIME24 accuracy fell steadily compared with no fine-tuning at all, even though the generated problems share surface structure with the test set. The paper traces this to a generator default: asked to produce variations of a hard 'parent' problem, LLMs produce much easier variants, confirmed by GPT-4 difficulty ratings, so the model learns rote pattern imitation rather than procedur

What carries the argument

Two linked mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the named Scaling Law by Difficulty: a U-shaped relationship between training-data complexity and downstream reasoning performance. It is established empirically by the Figure 1 curve—AIME24 accuracy monotonically drops as template-generated synthetic data grows from 0k to 100k—and by a GPT-4 difficulty audit showing generated problems are far easier than their parents, while a smaller curated high-difficulty set outperforms the larger synthetic set. The second is the Structured Solution Template (SST): short abstract blueprints of a solution procedure written as <chain>...</chain> token sequences. The template does three jobs. In Stage

Load-bearing premise

The paper attributes the AIME24 performance decline specifically to the low difficulty of the template-generated synthetic data, without controlling for other differences from the curated comparison data—repetition, surface-form overfitting, or distribution shift away from AIME-style problems; if difficulty is not the real driver, the U-shaped law collapses.

What would settle it

Fine-tune the same 1.5B base model on template-generated synthetic problems whose difficulty distribution has been artificially matched to the curated Open-R1 set (by filtering easy items or prompting the generator to escalate difficulty), scaling from 0k to 100k samples and measuring AIME24 accuracy at each size. If accuracy no longer declines with dataset size, difficulty is confirmed as the driver of the U-shape; if it still declines, some other property of synthetic data is the cause.

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

If this is right

  • The default strategy of scaling reasoning data by volume flips: since 100k easy synthetic problems can hurt more than help, generation pipelines must escalate or filter for difficulty, or risk degrading the very skill they target.
  • Chain-token weighting with a decaying schedule lets a 1.5B model internalize abstract procedure early and generalize later, so any format where a few tokens carry the reasoning load becomes a candidate for the same loss shaping.
  • Prompt-time chain injection from a lightweight generator improves hard-benchmark accuracy (AIME24 rises 28.30 to 32.67 in Stage 2) while cutting output tokens by 62% on easy problems, making the method an efficiency win as well as an accuracy win.
  • The plan-then-execute format with self-reflection, trained by GRPO over a hard-mined curriculum, produces the largest single-stage gains (up to +6.72 on Dynamic En), showing the U-shaped curve can be reshaped by training design, not merely respected by data filtering.
  • SST beats the strongest length-control baseline (L1) on GSM8K and matches or exceeds prior RL-tuned models on AIME24/25, indicating structured procedural scaffolding and reasoning-effort control are complementary levers, not alternatives.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the law generalizes beyond mathematics, curriculum designers for code, formal logic, or scientific reasoning should treat accumulated easy synthetic mass as an active hazard; a direct test would apply difficulty-filtered generation to those domains and check for the same U-shape.
  • The paper's attribution of the AIME24 decline to difficulty alone is not yet isolated from confounds such as repetition, surface-form overfitting, and distribution shift; a decisive experiment would hold the generator and template fixed and vary only measured difficulty.
  • The linearly decaying chain-token weight hints at a within-sequence curriculum; an untested extension is to make the weight schedule adapt to the model's own error rate, turning token weighting into an online difficulty controller.
  • The new Dynamic En benchmark separates small models widely (8.75 to 63.73 accuracy), so it could be reused as a high-discrimination stress test for template-guided and RL-trained reasoning methods beyond this paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims to identify a 'Scaling Law by Difficulty': LLM performance on math reasoning is asserted to follow a U-shaped curve with respect to training-data difficulty, with excessive low-difficulty data hurting abstraction and high-difficulty data enhancing reasoning. Motivated by this, the authors propose the Structured Solution Template (SST) framework, comprising (1) fine-tuning with weighted loss on structured solution-template chains, (2) prompt-time injection of generated chains as cognitive scaffolds, and (3) integrated curriculum fine-tuning with GRPO. Experiments on GSM8K, MATH500, AIME24/25, AMC23, Gaokao English, and a new Dynamic En benchmark report accuracy and efficiency gains, especially on harder problems.

Significance. The paper presents a substantial amount of experimental work: a three-stage training pipeline with clear ablations, results averaged over eight seeds, comparison with multiple public baselines, and a new cross-domain benchmark. If the scaling-law claim were supported, it would be a noteworthy finding with implications for synthetic-data curation. However, the central novelty is not established: the controlled experiment in Figure 1 shows a monotone decline, not a U-shape, and the high-difficulty comparison is confounded and partly misreported. The method itself may have value, but the paper's framing and central claim are not currently justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Scaling Law by Difficulty, Fig. 1] The claimed U-shaped law is not supported by the evidence presented. Figure 1 plots AIME24 accuracy against training-set size for template-generated synthetic data and shows a monotone decrease from 0k to 100k for both model sizes. There is no difficulty axis, no high-difficulty condition in this controlled experiment, and no U-shaped function fitted or displayed. The Abstract and Conclusion repeat the 'U-shaped curve' claim, but the only controlled curve in the paper has the opposite shape. To support the law, the authors would need to vary difficulty within the same data source and show a non-monotone performance curve.
  2. [Scaling Law by Difficulty, Open-R1 paragraph] The one high-difficulty comparison is confounded and internally inconsistent. The text states that training on Open-R1 with 'only about one-fifth the data volume of the synthetic set' yields 30.48 on AIME24, but Table 1 reports 30.48 for the full SST-Framework, not for Open-R1 alone; Stage 1 on Open-R1 attains 27.71. The comparison also changes data source, problem distribution, format, token length, and repetition rate simultaneously, so difficulty cannot be isolated as the causal factor. This paragraph is load-bearing for the scaling-law claim.
  3. [Scaling Law by Difficulty, Fig. 3] The difficulty distribution in Figure 3 is not linked to any performance curve. The paper asserts a causal link between low difficulty and performance decline, but Fig. 3 only shows that synthetic problems are rated easier than MATH problems; it does not show that difficulty, rather than repetition, surface-form overfitting, or distribution shift, caused the Figure 1 decline. No quantitative difficulty-performance relationship or functional form is provided, so the term 'Scaling Law' is not justified.
  4. [Contributions and Main Results] The claim that SST results 'validate and extend the Scaling Law by Difficulty' is circular. The scaling law is inferred from experiments with template-generated synthetic data, independent of SST; the success of SST is then presented as corroboration of the law. This does not test the law. The paper should specify a falsifiable prediction and test it separately.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues: 'focuse' in Stage 1, 'Soltion' in the section header, 'soss' in Table 5 heading, 'AN SW ER' in the Stage 3 trace, and inconsistent use of 'Step' vs 'Stage' between Table 1 and the text.
  2. [Figure 1] The legend and axis are confusing: the labels '1.5B 100k Baseline' and '1.5B 0k Baseline' are unclear, and the Open-R1 point is not clearly distinguished. A table of the underlying numbers would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Tables 4-6] Ablation tables report point estimates without standard deviations, unlike the main results. This makes it difficult to assess whether the reported differences are significant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Scaling Law by Difficulty is an empirical observation, and the SST framework is evaluated against external benchmarks rather than derived from its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the Scaling Law by Difficulty, is an empirical interpretation of Figure 1 and the Open-R1 comparison. It is not defined in terms of the SST framework's outputs, and no parameter of the law is fitted from SST results. SST is a subsequent method motivated by that observation, and its reported gains on GSM8K, AIME24, and other benchmarks are independent empirical evidence. The only potentially self-referential element is the citation of PromptCoT (Zhao et al. 2025), which shares author W. Wu with the present paper; however, that citation is used as a baseline and in related work, not as a load-bearing premise for the Scaling Law or the SST design. The appended limitation statement—that evaluation is primarily in mathematics—restricts scope but does not feed back into the derivation. No equation-level circularity, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation chain is present. Concerns about the U-shaped claim being under-supported are correctness/validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that the Open-R1 dataset is genuinely harder, that GPT-4 provides reliable difficulty labels, and that difficulty rather than other data properties drives the Figure 1 decline. No quantitative curve or error bars are given for the scaling law, so the 'law' is an interpretation rather than a fitted model.

free parameters (5)
  • w_initial
    Initial chain-token loss weight in Eq. (2), chosen by hand; value not reported.
  • T
    Total training steps in Eq. (2), not reported.
  • distilled_example_count = 3,843
    Number of examples selected from 10,000 based on template fidelity and correct final answers; hand-set threshold.
  • grpo_hyperparameters
    Rollout count, KL coefficient, and other GRPO settings are not reported.
  • lora_rank_alpha
    LoRA rank and alpha for the 1.5B chain generator are not reported.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Open-R1 dataset (94k split) contains only challenging mathematical problems and is a valid proxy for high-difficulty training data.
    Used to contrast with low-difficulty synthetic data in the scaling-law experiment.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 difficulty ratings are a reliable measure of problem difficulty.
    Figure 3 relies on these ratings to claim synthetic problems are easier.
  • domain assumption AIME24 accuracy is a valid proxy for procedural reasoning ability.
    AIME24 is the main benchmark for the scaling-law observation and is treated as a measure of deep reasoning.
  • ad hoc to paper Difficulty is the causal factor behind the Figure 1 performance decline, rather than other data properties such as repetition or distribution shift.
    The paper asserts this causal link without controlling for confounds; the U-shaped law depends on this interpretation.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Structured Templates Facilitate LLMs in Tackling Harder Tasks? : An Exploration of Scaling Laws by Difficulty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUHVF4HZ

@misc{pith2026250819069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Structured Templates Facilitate LLMs in Tackling Harder Tasks? : An Exploration of Scaling Laws by Difficulty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUHVF4HZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19069}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Structured, procedural reasoning is essential for Large Language Models (LLMs), especially in mathematics. While post-training methods have improved LLM performance, they still fall short in capturing deep procedural logic on complex tasks. To tackle the issue, in this paper, we first investigate this limitation and uncover a novel finding: a Scaling Law by Difficulty, which reveals that model performance follows a U-shaped curve with respect to training data complexity -- excessive low-difficulty data impedes abstraction, while high-difficulty data significantly enhances reasoning ability. Motivated by this, we propose the Structured Solution Template (SST) framework, which uses solution templates and a curriculum of varied difficulty to explicitly teach procedural reasoning. Specifically, SST comprises (1) fine-tuning with structured solution-template chains and dynamically weighted loss to prioritize procedural logic, (2) prompt-time injection of solution templates as cognitive scaffolds to guide inference, and (3) integrated curriculum fine-tuning that explicitly teaches the model to self-plan - execute - self-correct. Experiments on GSM8K, AIME24, and new Dynamic En benchmark show that SST significantly improves both accuracy and efficiency, especially on harder problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19069 by Gen Li, Wenjun Wu, Xin Wang, Xinyu Wang, Ye Qiu, Yifan Sun, Yuanze Hu, Zhaoxin Fan, Zhichao Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the Scaling Law by Difficulty. Model performance declines as the amount of template-generated synthetic data increases: as dataset size grows from 0k to 100k, the accuracy of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen on AIME24 consistently drops, even though the training and test problems are structurally similar. This counter-intuitive result highlights a key limitation—large quantities of low￾abstraction … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our Structured Solution Template (SST) framework and three-stage training pipeline. Bottom: A lightweight LoRA-trained generator produces procedural SST chains, which are inserted at prompt time to guide solver models. Middle: DeepSeek-R1 is used to generate structured “Plan-then-Think” solutions for challenging problems, creating an AI-generated curriculum of high-difficulty training data. Top… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of difficulty distribution between synthetic and MATH training data (left), and the ab￾solute prediction error distribution on MATH500 test dataset (right). ing data through structured data augmentation. To this end, we introduce the SST framework (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of chain-generator models in Stage 2: pass@1 accuracy (mean±std) on GSM8K, AIME24 and AMC23, for model with and without LoRA. Impact of the weighted soss vs. unweighted ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. State Beyond Appearance: Diagnosing and Improving State Consistency in Dial-Based Measurement Reading

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MLLMs ignore dial state geometry and cluster by appearance, causing inconsistency under variations; TriSCA's state-distance alignment, metadata supervision, and objective alignment improve robustness on clock and gaug...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    AIME-2025

    https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/ index.php/2024 AIME I. AIME-2025

    work page 2024

  2. [4]

    AMC-2023

    https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/ index.php/2025 AIME I. AMC-2023

    work page 2025

  3. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16219

    Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Small LLMs: What Works and What Doesn’t. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16219. Gaokao2023-Math-En

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948. Hu, E. J.; Shen, Y .; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y .; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; Chen, W.; et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [10]

    https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1

    Open R1: A fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1. https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1. Accessed: 2024-07-29. Imani, S.; Du, L.; and Shrivastava, H

    work page 2024

  6. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398

    Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398. Jaech, A.; Kalai, A.; Lerer, A.; Richardson, A.; El-Kishky, A.; Low, A.; Helyar, A.; Madry, A.; Beutel, A.; Carney, A.; et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720

    Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720. Jin, Z.; and Lu, W

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17812

    Tab-cot: Zero-shot tabular chain of thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17812. Li, J.; Li, G.; Li, Y .; and Jin, Z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06259

    Self-alignment with in- struction backtranslation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06259. Lightman, H.; Kosaraju, V .; Burda, Y .; Edwards, H.; Baker, B.; Lee, T.; Leike, J.; Schulman, J.; Sutskever, I.; and Cobbe, K

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050

    Let’s Verify Step by Step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050. Liu, T.; Guo, Q.; Yang, Y .; Hu, X.; Zhang, Y .; Qiu, X.; and Zhang, Z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14628

    Plan, verify and switch: Inte- grated reasoning with diverse x-of-thoughts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14628. Long, L.; Wang, R.; Xiao, R.; Zhao, J.; Ding, X.; Chen, G.; and Wang, H

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15126

    On llms-driven synthetic data gener- ation, curation, and evaluation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15126. Luo, H.; Sun, Q.; Xu, C.; Zhao, P.; Lou, J.; Tao, C.; Geng, X.; Lin, Q.; Chen, S.; and Zhang, D

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583

    Wizard- math: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large lan- guage models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583. Qwen Team

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560

    Openmathinstruct-2: Accelerating ai for math with massive open-source instruc- tion data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560. Wang, P.; Li, L.; Shao, Z.; Xu, R.; Dai, D.; Li, Y .; Chen, D.; Wu, Y .; and Sui, Z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935

    Math-shepherd: Verify and rein- force llms step-by-step without human annotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935. Wang, X.; Wei, J.; Schuurmans, D.; Le, Q.; Chi, E.; Narang, S.; Chowdhery, A.; and Zhou, D

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. Wei, J.; Bosma, M.; Zhao, V . Y .; Guu, K.; Yu, A. W.; Lester, B.; Du, N.; Dai, A. M.; and Le, Q. V

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652

    Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V .; Zhou, D.; et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08464

    Magpie: Alignment data synthesis from scratch by prompting aligned llms with nothing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08464. Yang, A.; Li, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Gao, C.; Huang, C.; Lv, C.; et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388

    Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. Yao, S.; Yu, D.; Zhao, J.; Shafran, I.; Griffiths, T.; Cao, Y .; and Narasimhan, K

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653

    Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653. Zelikman, E.; Wu, Y .; Mu, J.; and Goodman, N

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02324

    Prompt- cot: Synthesizing olympiad-level problems for mathemat- ical reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02324. Zheng, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Lin, R.; Lu, K.; Yu, B.; Liu, D.; Zhou, J.; and Lin, J

    arXiv

  22. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06559

    Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06559. Zhu, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y .; Gan, R.; Zhang, J.; and Yang, Y

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16257

    Solving math word problems via coop- erative reasoning induced language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168

    Training Ver- ifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. Dang, Q.-A.; and Ngo, C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403

    Towards reason- ing in large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403. Huang, Y .; Liu, X.; Gong, Y .; Gou, Z.; Shen, Y .; Duan, N.; and Chen, W

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [2023]

    Anantheswaran, U.; Gupta, H.; Scaria, K.; Verma, S.; Baral, C.; and Mishra, S

    https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/ index.php/2023 AMC 12A. Anantheswaran, U.; Gupta, H.; Scaria, K.; Verma, S.; Baral, C.; and Mishra, S

    work page 2023

  27. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, 225–237

    Large Language Models for Mathematical Rea- soning: Progresses and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, 225–237. AIME-2024

    work page 2024

  28. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697

    L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697. Ahn, J.; Verma, R.; Lou, R.; Liu, D.; Zhang, R.; and Yin, W

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.