CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Critique Fine-Tuning: Learning to Critique is More Effective than Learning to Imitate

Open access
Wang, Yubo, Yue, Xiang, Chen, Wenhu·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2501.17703arXiv 2501.17703
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is commonly used to train language models to imitate annotated responses for given instructions. In this paper, we propose Critique Fine-Tuning (CFT), a method more effective than SFT for reasoning tasks. Instead of simply imitating correct responses, CFT trains models to critique noisy responses, inspired by human learning processes that emphasize critical thinking, deeper analysis, and nuanced understanding - traits often overlooked by standard SFT. To validate the effectiveness of CFT, we construct multiple critique datasets (e.g., WebInstruct, MetaMath, NuminaMath), where GPT-4o serves as the teacher to generate critiques in the form of ([query; noisy response], critique). Experiments on these datasets demonstrate that CFT consistently outperforms SFT by 4-10% across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, and is effective across different base models including Qwen2.5, Qwen2.5-Math, and DeepSeek-Math. Notably, our model Qwen2.5-Math-CFT only requires 1 hour of training on 8 x H100 over the 50K examples, yet matches or outperforms strong competitors like Qwen2.5-Math-Instruct on most benchmarks, which use over 2M samples. Moreover, it matches the performance of SimpleRL, which is a DeepSeek-r1 replication trained with 140 x more compute. Experiments on IF_Eval and MT-Bench further demonstrate that CFT can significantly enhance the model's general generation and instruction-following capabilities, outperforming the Qwen2.5-Math-Instruct by a large margin. Ablation studies show that CFT is robust to noisy response sources and teacher critique models. These findings highlight that CFT offers a more effective alternative to advance the reasoning of language models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.17703

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The effectiveness of critiques extends from simple indicators to detailed chain-of-thought evaluations.

    “This efficacy extends from simple indicators to detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) evaluations (Wang et al., 2025).”

    From Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025

    Section 3 (Experiments; page unavailable) reports improved benchmark results for critique fine-tuning, and Appendix A.4.1 shows detailed, step-by-step critique prompts. Our copy does not show that the paper tested the effectiveness of simple indicators or established efficacy across the claimed range of critique formats. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing natural-language-feedback methods mainly use supervised fine-tuning to imitate static, pre-collected critiques or critique-guided refinements.

    “However, existing methods primarily utilize supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to imitate static, pre-collected critiques or critique-guided refinements (Wang et al., 2025;Chen et al., 2024;Xi et al., 2024).”

    From Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025

    The Introduction says SFT trains models to imitate annotated responses, supporting the claim's point about imitation. But it does not say that existing natural-language-feedback methods primarily imitate static, pre-collected critiques or critique-guided refinements. The paper instead presents training on critiques as its proposed alternative to traditional SFT (Introduction; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Including error and self-correction in training complements error-free human demonstration and preference, making models more robust to errors and better at backtracking.

    “This complements error-free human demonstration and preference, making models more robust to errors (consistent with work on learning from mistakes (An et al., 2024) and critique fine-tuning (Wang et al., 2025)) and better at backtracking.”

    From Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025

    The Training Objective (§2.3) uses noisy responses, and the Conclusion says teaching models to critique incorrect reasoning can improve reasoning and generalization. That supports the connection to learning from errors, but the paper does not show improved backtracking or establish that CFT complements human-preference training. Its Self-Correction section says the trained model generates answers without iterative refinement. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior work usually incorporates natural language feedback either by converting it into scalar rewards for RL finetuning or by using supervised fine-tuning to imitate static critiques or critique-guided refinements.

    “Current literature typically integrates NLF by: (1) translating linguistic feedback into scalar reward signals for RL finetuning (Kim et al., 2023;Whitehouse et al., 2025;Liu et al., 2025b;Lightman et al., 2024;Ouyang et al., 2022;Casper et al., 2023;Rafailov et al., 2024); or (2) utilizing SFT to imitate static critiques or critique-guided refinements (Wang et al., 2025;Xi et al., 2024;Chen et al”

    From Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Zachary Ankner, Mansheej Paul, Brandon Cui, Jonathan Daniel Chang, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. Critique-out-loud reward models. In Pluralistic Alignment Workshop at NeurIPS 2024.
  3. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. Constitu- tional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022. · arXiv
  5. Wenhu Chen, Ming Yin, Max Ku, Pan Lu, Yixin Wan, Xueguang Ma, Jianyu Xu, Xinyi Wang, and Tony Xia. Theoremqa: A theorem-driven question answering dataset. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 7889-7901, 2023.
  6. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
  7. Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, Jiarui Yuan, Huayu Chen, Kaiyan Zhang, Xingtai Lv, Shuo Wang, Yuan Yao, Xu Han, Hao Peng, Yu Cheng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Bowen Zhou, and Ning Ding. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01456. · arXiv
  8. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. · arXiv
  9. Deep Ganguli, Amanda Askell, Nicholas Schiefer, Thomas I Liao, Kamil ė Lukoši ūt ė, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Catherine Olsson, Danny Hernandez, et al. The ca- pacity for moral self-correction in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07459, 2023. · arXiv
  10. Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  11. Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04519. · arXiv
  12. Daya Guo, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhenda Xie, Kai Dong, Wentao Zhang, Guanting Chen, Xiao Bi, Yu Wu, YK Li, et al. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming-the rise of code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196, 2024. · arXiv
  13. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. · arXiv
  14. Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging bench- mark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14008, 2024. · arXiv
  15. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), 2021.
  16. Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  17. Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024. · arXiv
  18. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. · arXiv
  19. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, et al. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088, 2024. · arXiv
  20. Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024. · arXiv
  21. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3843-3857, 2022.
  22. Chen Li, Weiqi Wang, Jingcheng Hu, Yixuan Wei, Nanning Zheng, Han Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Houwen Peng. Common 7b language models already possess strong math capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04706, 2024a. · arXiv
  23. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023a. · arXiv
  24. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023b. · arXiv
  25. Zihan Liu, Yang Chen, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro, and Wei Ping. Acemath: Advancing frontier math reasoning with post-training and reward modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15084, 2024. · arXiv
  26. Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jianguang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. Wizardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583, 2023. · arXiv
  27. Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xiubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  28. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  29. Arindam Mitra, Hamed Khanpour, Corby Rosset, and Ahmed Awadallah. Orca-math: Unlocking the potential of slms in grade school math. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14830, 2024. · arXiv
  30. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  31. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google- proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023. · arXiv
  32. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, et al. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  33. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. · arXiv
  34. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  35. Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. · arXiv
  36. Shubham Toshniwal, Wei Du, Ivan Moshkov, Branislav Kisacanin, Alexan Ayrapetyan, and Igor Gitman. Openmathinstruct-2: Accelerating ai for math with massive open-source instruction data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560, 2024. · arXiv
  37. Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275, 2022. · arXiv
  38. Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Can large language models really improve by self-critiquing their own plans? In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023.
  39. Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 9426-9439, 2024a.
  40. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. Super-naturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 5085-5109, 2022.
  41. Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A Smith, Iz Beltagy, et al. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74764-74786, 2023a.
  42. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 13484-13508, 2023b.
  43. Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, Tianle Li, Max Ku, Kai Wang, Alex Zhuang, Rongqi Fan, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. MMLU-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=y10DM6R2r3.
  44. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  45. Sean Welleck, Ximing Lu, Peter West, Faeze Brahman, Tianxiao Shen, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. Generating sequences by learning to self-correct. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  46. Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=CfXh93NDgH.
  47. An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024a. · arXiv
  48. An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, et al. Qwen2. 5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122, 2024b. · arXiv
  49. Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, YU Jincheng, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathemati- cal questions for large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  50. Lifan Yuan, Wendi Li, Huayu Chen, Ganqu Cui, Ning Ding, Kaiyan Zhang, Bowen Zhou, Zhiyuan Liu, and Hao Peng. Free process rewards without process labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01981, 2024. · arXiv
  51. Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024a.
  52. Xiang Yue, Tianyu Zheng, Ge Zhang, and Wenhu Chen. MAmmoTH2: Scaling instructions from the web. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=yVu5dnPlqA.
  53. Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Qian Liu, Wei Liu, Keqing He, Zejun Ma, and Junxian He. Simplerl-zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18892, 2025. · arXiv
  54. Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yuntian Deng. Wild- chat: 1m chatgpt interaction logs in the wild. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  55. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595- 46623, 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Y., Yue, X., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
ORCID
Chen, Wenhu
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2501.17703
arXiv
2501.17703
OpenAlex
W4406975744
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
supervised fine-tuning, mathematical reasoning, large language models, instruction following, critical thinking, teacher model, reasoning benchmarks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review