Counterfactual Self-Questioning for Stable Policy Optimization in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00885v1
• Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:10:37 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual Self-Questioning for Stable Policy Optimization in Language Models
• Authors: Mandar Parab,
• Abstract summary: We propose Counterfactual Self-Questioning, a framework in which a single language model generates and evaluates counterfactual critiques of its own reasoning.<n> Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that counterfactual self-questioning improves accuracy and training stability, particularly for smaller models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent work on language model self-improvement shows that models can refine their own reasoning through reflection, verification, debate, or self-generated rewards. However, most existing approaches rely on external critics, learned reward models, or ensemble sampling, which increases complexity and training instability. We propose Counterfactual Self-Questioning, a framework in which a single language model generates and evaluates counterfactual critiques of its own reasoning. The method produces an initial reasoning trace, formulates targeted questions that challenge potential failure points, and generates alternative reasoning trajectories that expose incorrect assumptions or invalid steps. These counterfactual trajectories provide structured relative feedback that can be directly used for policy optimization without auxiliary models. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that counterfactual self-questioning improves accuracy and training stability, particularly for smaller models, enabling scalable self-improvement using internally generated supervision alone.

Related papers

• Recursive Think-Answer Process for LLMs and VLMs [54.52289112197118]
  We propose an efficient Recursive Think-Answer Process (R-TAP)<n>R-TAP enables models to engage in iterative reasoning cycles and generate more accurate answers.<n>We show that R-TAP-enhanced models consistently outperform conventional single-pass methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T17:20:10Z)
• Stabilizing Reinforcement Learning for Honesty Alignment in Language Models on Deductive Reasoning [27.42733470720954]
  We propose a reinforcement learning method that injects ground truth trajectories into rollouts, preventing early training collapse.<n>Our results demonstrate that this method stabilizes learning and significantly improves the overall reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T11:34:19Z)
• Self-Consistency as a Free Lunch: Reducing Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models via Self-Reflection [71.8243083897721]
  Vision-language models often hallucinate details, generating non-existent objects or inaccurate attributes that compromise output reliability.<n>We present a novel framework that leverages the model's self-consistency between long responses and short answers to generate preference pairs for training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T10:37:11Z)
• Language Models can perform Single-Utterance Self-Correction of Perturbed Reasoning [4.768151813962547]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive mathematical reasoning capabilities.<n>Their performance remains brittle to minor variations in problem description and prompting strategy.<n>To better understand self-correction capabilities of recent models, we conduct experiments measuring models' ability to self-correct synthetics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T21:35:44Z)
• Can Large Reasoning Models Self-Train? [51.0277533541394]
  We use majority voting as a simple self-feedback mechanism to study whether self-training can be sustained within reinforcement learning.<n>We find that this basic approach improves not only the model's reasoning performance, but also its capability of generating better quality feedback for the next RL iteration.<n>Yet our analysis also reveals a critical limitation of such a self-training paradigm - prolonged RL with self-reward leads to reward hacking, resulting in sudden and complete performance collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:16:00Z)
• Self-rewarding correction for mathematical reasoning [19.480508580498103]
  We study self-rewarding reasoning large language models (LLMs)<n>LLMs can simultaneously generate step-by-step reasoning and evaluate the correctness of their outputs during the inference time-without external feedback.<n>We propose a two-staged algorithmic framework for constructing self-rewarding reasoning models using only self-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T23:01:16Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanism [70.9248553790022]
  We offer a new perspective on the capabilities of self-improvement through a lens we refer to as sharpening.<n>Motivated by the observation that language models are often better at verifying response quality than they are at generating correct responses, we formalize self-improvement as using the model itself as a verifier during post-training.<n>We analyze two natural families of self-improvement algorithms based on SFT and RLHF.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:24:17Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision [120.40788744292739]
  We propose a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models. We first propose AutoMathCritique, an automated and scalable framework for collecting critique data. We demonstrate that the critique models consistently improve the actor's performance on difficult queries at test-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:11:54Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)

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.