Can Large Reasoning Models Improve Accuracy on Mathematical Tasks Using Flawed Thinking?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17079v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:20:21 GMT
• Title: Can Large Reasoning Models Improve Accuracy on Mathematical Tasks Using Flawed Thinking?
• Authors: Saraswathy Amjith, Mihika Dusad, Neha Muramalla, Shweta Shah,
• Abstract summary: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become central to mathematical reasoning in large language models.<n>We investigate whether training on intentionally flawed reasoning traces can teach models to detect and recover from such errors.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become central to mathematical reasoning in large language models, yet models remain brittle to early errors: a single arithmetic slip or unjustified inference typically propagates uncorrected to an incorrect final answer. We investigate whether training on intentionally flawed reasoning traces can teach models to detect and recover from such errors without degrading standard problem-solving ability. Using competition-level problems from MATH-lighteval, we generate CoT prefixes containing exactly one controlled error, either a calculation error (sign flips, dropped terms) or a reasoning error (misapplied rules, unjustified logical steps), and fine-tune Qwen3-4B with GRPO using a binary final-answer reward. Our Mixed-CoT-RL model matches standard RL on clean problems (41% vs 41%) while substantially outperforming it on problems prefilled with flawed reasoning (24% vs 19%). Notably, clean-only RL fine-tuning degrades robustness below the untuned baseline 19% vs. 20%), indicating that conventional training increases susceptibility to misleading prefills. Among error types, training on reasoning errors yields greater robustness gains than calculation errors alone, with mixed training performing best. These findings demonstrate that exposure to flawed traces during training can improve error-recovery behavior without sacrificing accuracy, suggesting a path toward more robust mathematical reasoning in LLMs.

Related papers

• InT: Self-Proposed Interventions Enable Credit Assignment in LLM Reasoning [32.274434679047395]
  Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) has proven effective at improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Standard RL assigns credit only at the level of the final answer, penalizing entire reasoning traces when the outcome is incorrect.<n>We introduce Intervention Training (InT), a training paradigm in which the model performs fine-grained credit assignment on its own reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T18:15:38Z)
• EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs [9.412828452977553]
  Existing approaches reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost.<n>This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment.<n>We proposeEpiCaR as a training objective that jointly optimize reasoning performance and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T06:21:13Z)
• Hard Negative Sample-Augmented DPO Post-Training for Small Language Models [4.425580048633862]
  We propose a lightweight and pragmatic post-training pipeline that targets structured errors under realistic compute budgets.<n>We introduce a compact MathVerifier that decomposes a candidate solution into a six-dimensional error profile and aggregates it into interpretable wrongness and absurdity scores.<n> Experiments show that verifier-guided, weighted DPO yields more targeted improvements than vanilla SFT and unweighted DPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T06:15:52Z)
• Consistency-based Abductive Reasoning over Perceptual Errors of Multiple Pre-trained Models in Novel Environments [5.5855749614100825]
  This paper addresses the hypothesis that leveraging multiple pre-trained models can mitigate this recall reduction.<n>We formulate the challenge of identifying and managing conflicting predictions from various models as a consistency-based abduction problem.<n>Our results validate the use of consistency-based abduction as an effective mechanism to robustly integrate knowledge from multiple imperfect models in challenging, novel scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T23:17:47Z)
• The First Few Tokens Are All You Need: An Efficient and Effective Unsupervised Prefix Fine-Tuning Method for Reasoning Models [69.798277882245]
  We introduce Unsupervised Prefix Fine-Tuning (UPFT) to enhance large language models' reasoning efficiency.<n>UPFT removes the need for labeled data or exhaustive sampling.<n> Experiments show that UPFT matches the performance of supervised methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T18:56:03Z)
• Exploring the Limit of Outcome Reward for Learning Mathematical Reasoning [65.2421542320293]
  Reasoning abilities are crucial components of general intelligence.<n>Recent advances by proprietary companies, such as o-series models of OpenAI, have made remarkable progress on reasoning tasks.<n>This paper proposes a new RL framework, termed OREAL, to pursue the performance limit that can be achieved through textbfOutcome textbfREwtextbfArd-based reinforcement textbfLearning for mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T18:57:29Z)
• Rethinking Early Stopping: Refine, Then Calibrate [49.966899634962374]
  We present a novel variational formulation of the calibration-refinement decomposition.<n>We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that calibration and refinement errors are not minimized simultaneously during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T15:03:54Z)
• Subtle Errors in Reasoning: Preference Learning via Error-injected Self-editing [59.405145971637204]
  We propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE)<n>RISE injects predefined subtle errors into pivotal tokens in reasoning or steps to construct hard pairs for error mitigation.<n>Experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH with only 4.5K training samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T07:43:38Z)
• Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning [98.35197671595343]
  Self-correction has been found to be largely ineffective in modern large language models (LLMs) We develop a multi-turn online reinforcement learning approach, SCoRe, that significantly improves an LLM's self-correction ability using entirely self-generated data. We find that SCoRe achieves state-of-the-art self-correction performance, improving the base models' self-correction by 15.6% and 9.1% respectively on MATH and HumanEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T17:16:21Z)
• Toward Theoretical Guidance for Two Common Questions in Practical Cross-Validation based Hyperparameter Selection [72.76113104079678]
  We show the first theoretical treatments of two common questions in cross-validation based hyperparameter selection. We show that these generalizations can, respectively, always perform at least as well as always performing retraining or never performing retraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T16:37:12Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating the Tradeoff Between Robustness and Accuracy [88.51943635427709]
  Adversarial training augments the training set with perturbations to improve the robust error. We show that the standard error could increase even when the augmented perturbations have noiseless observations from the optimal linear predictor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-25T08:03:01Z)

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.