In recent months, substantial progress has been made in complex reasoning of Large Language Models, particularly through the application of test-time scaling. Notable examples include o1/o3/o4 series and DeepSeek-R1. When responding to a query, these models generate an extended reasoning trajectory, during which the model explores, reflects, backtracks, and self-verifies before arriving at a conclusion. However, fine-tuning models with such reasoning trajectories may not always be optimal. Our findings indicate that not all components within these reasoning trajectories contribute positively to the reasoning process; in fact, some components may affect the overall performance negatively. In this study, we divide a reasoning trajectory into individual subtrajectories and develop a "5+2" framework to: (1) systematically identify suboptimal subtrajectories within the reasoning trajectory based on five human-established criteria; (2) assess the independence of the suboptimal subtrajectories identified in (1) from the subsequent content, ensuring that their elimination does not compromise overall flow and coherence of the reasoning process. Additionally, a sampling algorithm, built upon the "5+2" framework, is employed to select data whose reasoning process is free from suboptimal subtrajectories to the highest degree. Experimental results demonstrate that our method can reduce the number of suboptimal subtrajectories by 25.9\% during the inference. Furthermore, our method achieves an average accuracy of 58.92\% on highly challenging math benchmarks with only two thirds of training data, surpassing the average accuracy of 58.06\% achieved with the entire data, and outperforming open-source datasets, when fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B. Finally, We validated our method under resource constraints and observed improved performance across various inference token limits.

Value model-guided search is effective in steering the generation but suffers from scaling flaws: Its superiority diminishes with larger sample sizes, underperforming non-search baselines. This limitation arises from reliability degradation in value models in unseen reasoning paths. To address this, we propose an uncertainty-aware search framework that includes two key components: (1) uncertainty-aware value models that incorporate uncertainty into predictions, and (2) an uncertainty-aware selection process using the proposed efficient Group Thompson Sampling algorithm. Experiments on GSM8K show that our method mitigates search scaling flaws, achieving 90.5% coverage at 16 samples compared to 85.8% for conventional value-guided search. This work establishes the first systematic integration of uncertainty quantification in LLM search paradigms.

Federated learning uses a set of techniques to efficiently distribute the training of a machine learning algorithm across several devices, who own the training data. These techniques critically rely on reducing the communication cost – the main bottleneck – between the devices and a central server. Federated learning algorithms usually take an optimization approach: they are algorithms for minimizing the training loss subject to communication (and other) constraints. In this work, we instead take a Bayesian approach for the training task, and propose a communication-efficient variant of the Langevin algorithm to sample a posteriori. The latter approach is more robust and provides more knowledge of the a posteriori distribution than its optimization counterpart.

This paper is a tutorial and literature review on sampling algorithms. We have two main types of sampling in statistics. The first type is survey sampling which draws samples from a set or population. The second type is sampling from probability distribution where we have a probability density or mass function. In this paper, we cover both types of sampling. First, we review some required background on mean squared error, variance, bias, maximum likelihood estimation, Bernoulli, Binomial, and Hypergeometric distributions, the Horvitz-Thompson estimator, and the Markov property. Then, we explain the theory of simple random sampling, bootstrapping, stratified sampling, and cluster sampling. We also briefly introduce multistage sampling, network sampling, and snowball sampling. Afterwards, we switch to sampling from distribution. We explain sampling from cumulative distribution function, Monte Carlo approximation, simple Monte Carlo methods, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. For simple Monte Carlo methods, whose iterations are independent, we cover importance sampling and rejection sampling. For MCMC methods, we cover Metropolis algorithm, Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, Gibbs sampling, and slice sampling. Then, we explain the random walk behaviour of Monte Carlo methods and more efficient Monte Carlo methods, including Hamiltonian (or hybrid) Monte Carlo, Adler's overrelaxation, and ordered overrelaxation. Finally, we summarize the characteristics, pros, and cons of sampling methods compared to each other. This paper can be useful for different fields of statistics, machine learning, reinforcement learning, and computational physics.

Data Quality Assessment Is Not All Roses. What Challenges Should You Be Aware Of? 5 Famous Deep Learning Courses/Schools of 2019 12 Deep Learning Researchers and Leaders Data Quality Assessment Is Not All Roses. What Challenges Should You Be Aware Of?