MR-Align: Meta-Reasoning Informed Factuality Alignment for Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24794v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 15:00:54 GMT
• Title: MR-Align: Meta-Reasoning Informed Factuality Alignment for Large Reasoning Models
• Authors: Xinming Wang, Jian Xu, Bin Yu, Sheng Lian, Hongzhu Yi, Yi Chen, Yingjian Zhu, Boran Wang, Hongming Yang, Han Hu, Xu-Yao Zhang, Cheng-Lin Liu,
• Abstract summary: Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited.<n>We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response.<n>We propose MR-ALIGN, a framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers.
• Score: 43.872922223495586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited. We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response, thereby reducing factual fidelity. To address this issue, we propose MR-ALIGN, a Meta-Reasoning informed alignment framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers. MR-ALIGN quantifies state transition probabilities along the model's thinking process and constructs a transition-aware implicit reward that reinforces beneficial reasoning patterns while suppressing defective ones at the atomic thinking segments. This re-weighting reshapes token-level signals into probability-aware segment scores, encouraging coherent reasoning trajectories that are more conducive to factual correctness. Empirical evaluations across four factual QA datasets and one long-form factuality benchmark show that MR-ALIGN consistently improves accuracy and truthfulness while reducing misleading reasoning. These results highlight that aligning the reasoning process itself, rather than merely the outputs, is pivotal for advancing factuality in LRMs.

Related papers

• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models [5.733004743054914]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process.<n>We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions.<n>We present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T03:49:37Z)
• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• Finding RELIEF: Shaping Reasoning Behavior without Reasoning Supervision via Belief Engineering [25.183793455770978]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex problem-solving, yet they often suffer from computational redundancy or reasoning unfaithfulness.<n>We propose Reasoning Belief Engineering (RELIEF), a framework that shapes LRM behavior by aligning the model's self-concept with a target belief blueprint.<n>RELIEF internalizes desired traits by fine-tuning on synthesized, self-reflective question-answering pairs that affirm the target belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:07:01Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Distortion Instead of Hallucination: The Effect of Reasoning Under Strict Constraints [0.0]
  Reasoning capabilities have received attention as a self-verification process to improve output reliability.<n>We conduct experiments under strict constraints to examine the effect of reasoning across multiple models.<n>Our results reveal a problematic trade-off between constraint compliance and factual accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T11:35:39Z)
• In-Token Rationality Optimization: Towards Accurate and Concise LLM Reasoning via Self-Feedback [38.915062716409686]
  InTRO is a new framework that enables both token-level exploration and self-feedback for accurate and concise reasoning.<n>InTRO consistently outperforms other baselines, raising solution accuracy by up to 20% relative to the base model.<n>Its chains of thought are notably more concise, exhibiting reduced verbosity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T01:47:06Z)
• Linking Process to Outcome: Conditional Reward Modeling for LLM Reasoning [30.302863491794543]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to guide their step-by-step reasoning toward a final answer.<n>Existing PRMs fail to capture inter-step dependencies, or struggle to align process rewards with the final outcome.<n>We propose Conditional Reward Modeling that frames reasoning as a temporal process leading to a correct answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T17:38:45Z)
• Reasoning or Retrieval? A Study of Answer Attribution on Large Reasoning Models [15.797612515648412]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces.<n>We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval.<n>We introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:13:33Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [85.17612793300238]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• Truthful or Fabricated? Using Causal Attribution to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Explanations [30.68740512996253]
  Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models.<n>We show that preference optimization can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T17:49:23Z)
• Bridging Internal Probability and Self-Consistency for Effective and Efficient LLM Reasoning [53.25336975467293]
  We present the first theoretical error decomposition analysis of methods such as perplexity and self-consistency.<n>Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: perplexity methods suffer from substantial model error due to the absence of a proper consistency function.<n>We propose Reasoning-Pruning Perplexity Consistency (RPC), which integrates perplexity with self-consistency, and Reasoning Pruning, which eliminates low-probability reasoning paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T18:09:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.