Despite the strong reasoning ability of large language models~(LLMs), they are prone to errors and hallucinations. As a result, how to check their outputs effectively and efficiently has become a critical problem in their applications. Existing checking methods heavily rely on external resources, such as trained verifiers (e.g., process/outcome reward models) or elaborate prompts, which lead to high computational overhead and are only applicable to specific domains. In this paper, we investigate whether the internal behaviors of LLMs have already implied the credibility of their reasoning paths. Specifically, we find that the rank of the correlation matrix between the input problem and the output reasoning path is a robust indicator of reasoning correctness. Different from other correctness indicators for LLMs, the calculation of the correlation matrix only relies on the LLM itself, which avoids the hassle of training a separate model or designing complicated prompts. Based on it, we design a simple, plug-and-play Self-Indicator method to reweight candidate reasoning paths, which achieves significant performance improvements than other voting and verification methods with very few computational overhead. Our experiments across multiple LLMs of varying scales and model families have further shown the effectiveness of Self-Indicator. It achieves over 75% accuracy in distinguishing correct reasoning paths from incorrect ones, and, in turn, improves the accuracies on three reasoning benchmarks by more than 8%.

LLMs possess a vast reservoir of knowledge, which remains under-utilized in current finetuning-based approaches.

Competitive programming has emerged as a critical benchmark for evaluating the reasoning and coding capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Despite impressive progress on existing benchmarks, we argue that current evaluations overstate model proficiency, masking a substantial gap between LLMs and elite human programmers. This gap arises from two key limitations: insufficient difficulty and scope of benchmark problems, and evaluation bias from low-quality test cases. To address these shortcomings, we present AetherCode, a new benchmark that draws problems from premier programming competitions such as IOI and ICPC, offering broader coverage and higher difficulty. AetherCode further incorporates comprehensive, expert-validated test suites built through a hybrid of automated generation and human curation, ensuring rigorous and reliable assessment. By combining challenging problem design with robust evaluation, AetherCode provides a more faithful measure of LLM capabilities and sets a new standard for future research in code reasoning.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex mathematical reasoning tasks, but they inevitably generate errors throughout multi-step solutions. Process-level Reward Models (PRMs) have shown great promise by providing supervision and evaluation at each intermediate step, thereby effectively improving the models' reasoning abilities. However, training effective PRMs requires high-quality process reward data, yet existing methods for constructing such data are often labour-intensive or inefficient. In this paper, we propose an uncertainty-driven framework for automated process reward data construction, encompassing both data generation and annotation processes for PRMs. Additionally, we identify the limitations of both majority vote and PRMs, and introduce two generic uncertainty-aware output aggregation methods: Hybrid Majority Reward Vote and Weighted Reward Frequency Vote, which combine the strengths of majority vote with PRMs. Extensive experiments on ProcessBench, MATH, and GSMPlus show the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed PRM data construction framework, and demonstrate that the two output aggregation methods further improve the mathematical reasoning abilities across diverse PRMs. The code and data will be publicly available at https://github.com/Jiuzhouh/UnPRM.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive progress in mathematical reasoning tasks. However, current evaluation benchmarks predominantly focus on the accuracy of final answers, often overlooking the crucial logical rigor for mathematical problem solving. The claim that state-of-the-art LLMs can solve Math Olympiad-level problems requires closer examination. To explore this, we conducted both qualitative and quantitative human evaluations of proofs generated by LLMs, and developed a schema for automatically assessing their reasoning capabilities. Our study reveals that current LLMs fall significantly short of solving challenging Olympiad-level problems and frequently fail to distinguish correct mathematical reasoning from clearly flawed solutions. Our analyses demonstrate that the occasional correct final answers provided by LLMs often result from pattern recognition or heuristic shortcuts rather than genuine mathematical reasoning. These findings underscore the substantial gap between LLM performance and human expertise in advanced mathematical reasoning and highlight the importance of developing benchmarks that prioritize the soundness of the reasoning used to arrive at an answer rather than the mere correctness of the final answers.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

How can "weak teacher models" such as average human annotators or existing AI systems, effectively supervise LLMs to improve performance on hard reasoning tasks, especially those that challenge and requires expertise or daily practice from the teacher models? In this paper, we seek for empirical answers to this question by investigating various data-driven strategies that offer supervision data at different quality levels upon tasks of varying complexity. Two intuitive strategies emerge for teacher models to provide supervision during alignment training: 1) using lower-quality supervision from complete tasks that match the difficulty of the target reasoning tasks, and 2) leveraging higher-quality supervision from easier subtasks that are less challenging. Interestingly, we find that even when the outcome error rate for hard task supervision is high (e.g., 90\%), training on such data can outperform perfectly correct supervision on easier subtasks on multiple hard math benchmarks. We further identify a more critical factor influencing training performance: step-wise error rates, which indicate the severity of errors in solutions. Specifically, training on hard task supervision with the same outcome error rates but disparate step-wise error rates can lead to a 30\% accuracy gap on MATH benchmark. Our results also reveal that supplementing hard task supervision with the corresponding subtask supervision can yield notable performance improvements than simply combining rephrased hard full task supervision, suggesting new avenues for data augmentation. Data and code are released at \url{https://github.com/hexuan21/Weak-to-Strong}.

Despite significant advancements in the general capability of large language models (LLMs), they continue to struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning, especially in complex tasks such as mathematical and code reasoning. One key limitation is that LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors, which hampers their ability to reliably verify and rank outputs. To address this, we scale up the inference-time computation by generating multiple reasoning paths and employing verifiers to assess and rank the generated outputs by correctness. To facilitate this, we introduce a comprehensive dataset consisting of correct and incorrect solutions for math and code tasks, generated by multiple LLMs. This diverse set of solutions enables verifiers to more effectively distinguish and rank correct answers from erroneous outputs. The training methods for building verifiers were selected based on an extensive comparison of existing approaches. Moreover, to leverage the unique strengths of different reasoning strategies, we propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification. CoT provides a clear, step-by-step reasoning process that enhances interpretability, while PoT, being executable, offers a precise and error-sensitive validation mechanism. By taking both of their strengths, our approach significantly improves the accuracy and reliability of reasoning verification. Our verifiers, Math-Rev and Code-Rev, demonstrate substantial performance gains to existing LLMs, achieving state-of-the-art results on benchmarks such as GSM8k and MATH and even outperforming GPT-4o with Qwen-72B-Instruct as the reasoner.