Rationale-Aware Answer Verification by Pairwise Self-Evaluation (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current approaches to train verifier models neglecting flawed rationales, resulting in an unreliable verifier. |
| Approach: | They propose a method for selecting valid rationales from candidates by iteratively applying pairwise self-evaluation using the same LLM that generates the solutions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms training methods on three reasoning benchmarks. |
Similar Papers
Self-Training Meets Consistency: Improving LLMs’ Reasoning with Consistency-Driven Rationale Evaluation (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches labeled rationales that produce correct answers as appropriate for training but one measure risks misjudging rationale quality, leading models to learn flawed reasoning patterns. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that evaluates rationales through follow-up questions and leverages this evaluation to guide its training. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves robustness and correctness of rationales and reasoning abilities compared to previous self-training approaches. |
LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning (2025.naacl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Empirical results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks substantiate the efficacy of Large language models (LLMs). |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier to generate plausible candidates and provide timely process-driven feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs. |
| Outcome: | Empirical results show that LLM2 improves accuracy on GSM8K and self-consistency increases major@20 accuracy. |
Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that large language models can self-correct their outputs by generating a critique and revising it based on the critique. |
| Approach: | They propose a pipeline that prompts small language models to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed pipeline improves the self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning. |
Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models for dialog tutoring fail to detect student errors and tailor their feedback to them. |
| Approach: | They propose to build dialog tutoring models to scaffold students' problem-solving and verify student solutions by using automatic and human evaluation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves the quality of the tutor response generation by detecting student errors and adjusting the feedback to the errors. |
EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don’t Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to improving reasoning abilities of large language models incur a significant calibration cost. |
| Approach: | They propose an epistemic learning problem that integrates reasoning and calibration into an iterative supervised training framework. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves Pareto-superiority over standard baselines in accuracy and calibration. |
CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Shudong Liu, Hongwei Liu, Junnan Liu, Linchen Xiao, Songyang Gao, Chengqi Lyu, Yuzhe Gu, Wenwei Zhang, Derek F. Wong, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen
| Challenge: | Existing approaches lack robustness to handle complex edge cases and generalizability across different domains. |
| Approach: | They develop an accurate and lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward that matches unstructured outputs against standard answers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can process multiple answer types including multi-subproblems, formulas, and sequence answers while identifying abnormal/invalid responses. |
Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to self-detection only retrospectively evaluate LLM-generated answers, leading to over-trust in incorrectly generated answers. |
| Approach: | They propose a self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers to mitigate the over-trust in LLM generated incorrect answers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection. |
LLM Critics Help Catch Bugs in Mathematics: Towards a Better Mathematical Verifier with Natural Language Feedback (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Bofei Gao, Zefan Cai, Runxin Xu, Peiyi Wang, Ce Zheng, Runji Lin, Keming Lu, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Wen Xiao, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang
| Challenge: | Existing mathematical verifiers are trained with binary classification labels, which are not informative enough for the model to accurately assess the solutions. |
| Approach: | They propose a natural language feedback-enhanced verifier that can validate the correctness of response generated by policy models by constructing automatically generated training data and a two-stage training paradigm. |
| Outcome: | The proposed verifier significantly improves in verification and reinforcement learning and alleviates data-demanding problems of the reward model. |
Self-Training Large Language Models with Confident Reasoning (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models generate reasoning paths before final answers, but learning such a path requires costly human supervision. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that fine-tunes LLMs to prefer reasoning paths with high confidence . they propose 'cORE-PO' that fine tunes Lms to choose high-quality reasoning paths . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves the accuracy of outputs on four in-distribution and two out-of-difference benchmarks. |
Does Self-Rationalization Improve Robustness to Spurious Correlations? (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Rationalization is fundamental to human reasoning and learning. |
| Approach: | They evaluate robustness to spurious correlations in encoder-decoder and decoder-only models . authors say explanations can come at the cost of robustness . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outputs are more interpretable and easier to interact with for end-users than nonrationalizing models. |