automated math tutoring platforms

Abstract: Multi-hop question answering (QA) requires models to chain intermediate conclusions while remaining cost-aware. Existing training-free self-reflective protocols (generate -> critique -> revise) improve accuracy but operate on a flat token stream: revisions cannot identify which prior step is unreliable, and early stopping cannot exploit structural convergence. We introduce GraphEvoResearcher, a training-free protocol that lifts EvoResearcher's self-reflective meta-reward onto an explicit reasoning graph - nodes are intermediate conclusions/evidence and edges encode support, contradict, and depends_on. A graph-aware meta-reward combines correctness, efficiency, reflection, diversity, and four structural signals (connectivity, acyclicity, branch coverage, path convergence) to decide whether to revise, backtrack, or stop. A graph-convergence early-stop terminates when evidence branches converge on a single conclusion. On a real LLM (DeepSeek), over GSM8K, MATH, and BBH (n=50 each), GraphEvoResearcher reaches 98%, 92%, and 82% respectively, the highest of all baselines, with the largest gains on the hardest set (MATH: +24 pp over single-shot, +12 pp over flat reflection), while keeping construction cost bounded at ~2 steps / 4.5-5 nodes. Our results indicate the structural signal of a reasoning graph is most valuable exactly where single-step reasoning is unreliable.

Abstract: Qwen3-8B reviewing Llama-3.1-8B in math adds 33.2 points, yet Qwen3-8B alone is 6.4 points more accurate than the result. Reviewing another model's answer is usually judged by its gain over the generator. We show that this confuses verification, which adds accuracy beyond either model alone, with capability transfer, where a stronger reviewer supplies answers it could have given on its own. Measured against the stronger model alone, across 48 pairs of 12 open-weight models (3B to 72B) in math, knowledge, code and reasoning, review beats it in only 9 of 96 review directions, and does worse the larger the capability gap. The reason is that the reviewer mostly follows the generator, discarding its own correct answers. Review costs 2.6 to 2.8 times as much as the stronger model alone, while a selector using the same two calls is 2.7 to 4.2 points more accurate than review and cheaper. Studies of verification should report the stronger model alone, not only the gain over the generator. Code and per-question results: https://github.com/Kamilaabb/verification-or-capability-transfer

Abstract: Large language models struggle to reliably identify and correct errors in their own reasoning. Unlike prior training-based approaches that fine-tune an LLM to generate revisions or feedback, we learn where to intervene in failed rollouts and determine how to redirect them. To choose where to intervene, we train a 130K-parameter MLP head on a frozen encoder using only final-answer correctness. For redirection, we find that under a fixed generation budget, the tested inline injections fail to reliably redirect reasoning, whereas presenting the same instruction in a new user turn changes the model's course. The resulting correction framework, UPTURN (User-Prompt TURN injection at a learned position), requires no LLM fine-tuning: it retains a selected prefix, injects an instruction as a new user turn, and regenerates the suffix. Across four reasoners and six math benchmarks, UPTURN improves average accuracy in every setting over a 32-rollout baseline. It outperforms self-correction and reflection-token injection baselines under matched correction budgets, transfers across reasoners and to GPQA-Diamond without retraining, and complements GRPO and self-correction methods.

Abstract: A language model can give a correct answer more probability than any single incorrect answer and still usually sample an incorrect one, because the incorrect answers together hold more probability. The power distribution raises each complete answer's probability to a power above one and renormalizes, shifting probability toward answers the model finds most likely (sharpening). Sampling from it improves reasoning without changing parameters, but needs many scored candidates per query. We show that a model can instead be trained to produce such answers in one generation. On-policy power distillation (OPPD) runs a sequential Monte Carlo sampler in which the model being trained generates candidates and a frozen teacher's power distribution weights them; the same probabilities weight each answer in a maximum-likelihood update. Training raises single-generation accuracy by up to 23.0 points on MATH500 and 27.3 on GSM8K over the untrained model at the same temperature, and one generation scores 2.4 and 3.5 points above published power sampling with 64 candidates, recovering 94 percent of the gain that 16 candidates give the untrained model. For context, against GRPO trained with verified rewards from the same checkpoint and budget, OPPD scores 3.8, 4.0 and 5.4 points higher on MATH500, GSM8K and AIME using no reference answers; the two are complementary, and OPPD applied after GRPO adds up to 9.3 points. Trained only on mathematics, OPPD raises HumanEval accuracy by up to 5.3 points. One loss coefficient moves the sharpening exponent the model absorbs between 1.19 and 2.02, against 1.14 for ordinary on-policy distillation, and it rises mostly on the model's own answers. Gains hold across model families and sizes, including a model already trained with verified rewards, where lowering the temperature gives nothing and OPPD adds 4.4 points on MATH500. Code: https://github.com/ArminAzizi98/OPPD.

Abstract: Verifier-guided decoding can prevent harmful reasoning steps from contaminating subsequent generation, but typically relies on an external learned verifier. We ask whether a language model can instead reject its own bad reasoning steps. We define a prefix's recoverability as the probability that the frozen generator can complete it correctly. Diagnostics show that adjacent recoverability changes are often difficult to resolve with practical Monte Carlo budgets, while same-prefix candidates exhibit a sparse low-recoverability tail. We introduce Self-Step Rejection (SSR), which trains a lightweight LoRA acceptance gate on the generator backbone while keeping the base model frozen. SSR uses confidence-qualified first-passage supervision: steps before the first resolved crossing of a root-relative recoverability barrier are accepted, the crossing step is rejected, and unresolved steps and suffixes are excluded. Training combines pointwise classification, same-prefix pairwise learning, and group-relative policy refinement using final-answer correctness. At inference, SSR accepts candidates or resamples from the unchanged prefix under rejection budgets, without an external learned verifier. Across three reasoning models and five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SSR improves macro-average accuracy over single-pass decoding by 5.4--10.1 points using 1.21--1.40x as many generated tokens, and achieves the highest macro-average accuracy among evaluated step-level methods. Full-solution scaling methods require 4.47--8.27x the single-pass token cost for comparable performance.

Abstract: Improving reasoning abilities in Large Language Models (LLMs) requires high-quality data that exposes difficult decisions, competing alternatives, and their consequences. Data scarcity is driven by the low quality of synthetic data and the cost of human labeling. We introduce Self-Play Search Distillation (SPSD), a framework for generating superhuman synthetic data via self-play of MuZero-like networks trained on board games. SPSD uses executable environments to turn search into structured reasoning problems. At each state, the expert identifies a preferred decision, plausible alternatives, plausible opponent replies, and value estimates. By converting the self-play search records into superhuman chains-of-thought, we train LLMs with environment-grounded supervision. Although trained only on self-play search records, SPSD transfers to unseen mathematics. On Qwen3-4B-Base, it raises the mean over six mathematics benchmarks from 24.1 to 36.6 while increasing the held-out-game win rate from 15% to 45%. SPSD offers an annotation-efficient way to create high-quality synthetic data for improving LLM performance in reasoning tasks.

Abstract: Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex tasks but exhibit systematic inefficiency: they often overthink easy problems and underthink hard ones. Existing approaches based on uniform length penalties or rigid routing incur an efficiency tax, trading reduced computation on easy instances for accuracy loss on hard instances. We formulate efficient reasoning as an instance-adaptive computation allocation problem and propose When2Think, a post-training framework for hybrid reasoning that dynamically allocates computation based on problem difficulty. Our method introduces Instance-level Difficulty-Aware Control (IDAC), a reward-shaping mechanism that leverages pre-computed reference statistics (accuracy and token usage) to regulate reasoning depth. Combined with verifier-based rewards and batch-wise standardized advantages, IDAC enables stable critic-free optimization without learned reward models or online reference-model queries. When2Think encourages direct answering on easy instances while preserving extended reasoning on hard instances, thereby learning when to use System 1 (NoThink) versus System 2 (Think). Experiments on mathematical benchmarks demonstrate improved accuracy-efficiency trade-offs: on AIME24, Pass@3 increases by 10.0% while token usage is reduced by 27.9% relative to the base model, and on AIME25, When2Think achieves 40.0% Pass@3, outperforming compression and routing-only baselines.