Semi-supervised framework scales LLM reasoning with minimal labeled data via lightweight verifier
A new arXiv preprint proposes a semi-supervised framework for training LLMs to reason with very few labeled examples, using a lightweight classifier to judge the validity of intermediate reasoning traces. An entropy-based confidence threshold filters unreliable pseudo-labels before fine-tuning. Experiments on math reasoning (Orca-Math subset) and visual QA (GQA) show accuracy comparable to using 10-15x more labeled data. The approach reduces dependence on expensive answer-level supervision by turning verification into a data-creation mechanism.
Related guides (2)
Related events (8)
ExpRL: RL-based mid-training using human QA data as reward scaffolds for LLM reasoning
ExpRL proposes an automated approach to LLM mid-training that replaces manually curated reasoning traces with large corpora of human-written QA data used as reward scaffolds rather than imitation targets. Reference solutions are hidden from the policy and used only to construct problem-specific grading rubrics, enabling dense process-level rewards that reinforce partial progress and intermediate reasoning steps. On challenging math reasoning benchmarks, ExpRL outperforms SFT, sparse-reward GRPO, and self-distillation as an RL initialization strategy, with additional mixed-domain experiments suggesting broader applicability.
Benchmarking study finds LLMs fail at counterintuitive probability problems despite strong standard performance
A new arXiv paper evaluates 8 state-of-the-art LLMs on discrete probability problems using two datasets: standard exercises (average accuracy 0.96) and counterintuitive exercises designed to trigger heuristic reasoning (average accuracy 0.59). The authors document token bias causing 20%+ performance drops when canonical problem formulations are disguised, and up to 34% degradation when misleading suggestions are embedded in prompts. The findings argue that current LLMs are not genuine probabilistic reasoners despite their success on advanced math benchmarks.
Tracing the Emergence of Human-Like Pragmatic Reasoning in LLMs Across Languages
Researchers conducted a population-matching experiment evaluating 25 LLMs on conditional inference tasks across four languages, comparing model behavior to matched human populations. The study finds that LLMs function as accurate semantic operators but systematically fail to capture pragmatic enrichments—context-sensitive inferences beyond literal logical meaning—that humans apply effortlessly. Model performance on pragmatic reasoning is not predicted by open vs. closed weights, training orientation, or architecture type, suggesting pragmatic reasoning remains an emergent and unreliable capability. The findings contribute to ongoing debates about whether LLMs reason like humans or merely approximate surface-level linguistic patterns.
Learning to Reason with LLMs
OpenAI announced a new model or capability focused on reasoning in large language models, published on September 12, 2024. The post, hosted on the OpenAI blog, describes advances in training LLMs to perform complex multi-step reasoning. This likely corresponds to the release of the o1 (formerly 'Strawberry') model series, which uses chain-of-thought reasoning trained via reinforcement learning to achieve significantly improved performance on math, science, and coding benchmarks.
Framework for quantifying faithful confidence expression in large reasoning models
A new arXiv preprint introduces a framework to measure faithful calibration (FC) in large reasoning models (LRMs)—the alignment between a model's intrinsic confidence and its linguistically expressed confidence. The authors analyze linguistic decisiveness against three internal uncertainty sources (token probabilities, hidden states, sampled response consistency) and introduce prefix-conditioned sampling to handle structural variation in chain-of-thought traces. Applying the framework across leading models, they find FC is a significant and distinct failure mode for LRMs: extended reasoning traces do not automatically improve calibration, prompt interventions that help non-reasoning models fail in the reasoning setting, and different confidence estimators produce divergent assessments of the same traces.
Operadic consistency: a label-free signal for detecting compositional reasoning failures in LLMs
Researchers introduce operadic consistency (OC), a label-free inference-time signal that checks whether an LLM's direct answer to a compositional query agrees with the answer produced by composing its own stated decomposition of that query. Evaluated across 12 instruction-tuned LLMs (4B–671B parameters) on four multi-hop QA datasets, OC achieves Pearson r ∈ [0.86, 0.94] with accuracy uniformly across all datasets, outperforming self-consistency, semantic entropy, and P(True) in cross-dataset robustness. At the per-question level, OC provides information beyond existing baselines and yields selective-prediction improvements (AUARC lifts +0.086–0.096, AUROC lifts +0.092–0.164) at equal sampling cost, with results extending to frontier thinking models using chain-of-thought decompositions.
Study compares human and LLM active causal reasoning, finding LLMs less efficient but near human-level on conjunctive rules
A new arXiv paper investigates whether active exploration reduces the 'conjunctive handicap' in causal learning, using a blicket detector task with adult participants who could freely intervene to identify causal objects. Results show active exploration substantially improves human conjunctive causal reasoning, though conjunctive rules still require more tests than disjunctive ones. State-of-the-art LLMs approach human-level hypothesis inference accuracy but show less efficient exploration strategies and similar conjunctive-disjunctive performance gaps, raising questions about the nature of LLM causal reasoning.
Skill-Conditioned Gated Self-Distillation (SGSD) for LLM Reasoning
SGSD is a new on-policy self-distillation method for LLM reasoning that replaces trusted privileged information (e.g., reference answers) with an experience-derived skill bank of skill-mistake pairs. It constructs a multi-teacher pool, validates each teacher's contribution via a verifier, and applies a gated objective to distill informative disagreements while suppressing noisy signals. On Qwen3-1.7B, SGSD outperforms GRPO by 6.2% and answer-conditioned OPSD by 1.7% on average across AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25. The method relaxes the assumption of trusted privileged information, making self-distillation more practical under weaker supervision.