CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 40Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification

Open access
Lee, Hyunseok, Oh, Seunghyuk, Kim, Jaehyung, Shin, Jinwoo, Tack, Jihoon·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.14565arXiv 2502.14565
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Self-awareness, i.e., the ability to assess and correct one's own generation, is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence, making its replication in large language models (LLMs) an important yet challenging task. Previous works tackle this by employing extensive reinforcement learning or rather relying on large external verifiers. In this work, we propose Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification (ReVISE), an efficient and effective framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification. The core idea of ReVISE is to enable LLMs to verify their reasoning processes and continually rethink reasoning trajectories based on its verification. We introduce a structured curriculum based upon online preference learning to implement this efficiently. Specifically, as ReVISE involves two challenging tasks (i.e., self-verification and reasoning correction), we tackle each task sequentially using curriculum learning, collecting both failed and successful reasoning paths to construct preference pairs for efficient training. During inference, our approach enjoys natural test-time scaling by integrating self-verification and correction capabilities, further enhanced by our proposed confidence-aware decoding mechanism. Our experiments on various reasoning tasks demonstrate that ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves reasoning performance.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

ReVISE is a two-stage preference-learning framework that teaches LLMs to self-verify their reasoning with a special `[refine]` token and then self-correct when verification indicates an error. It improves math and coding reasoning over SFT, RFT, and STaR+ baselines, with additional gains from confidence-aware majority voting at test time.

Key findings

  • ReVISE improves GSM8K Maj@1 from 26.2% (RFT) to 28.1% and Maj@5 from 29.9% (STaR+) to 32.8% with Llama-3.2-1B; on MATH-500 it reaches 13.4% Maj@1 and 14.8% Maj@5.
  • With Llama-3.1-8B, ReVISE reaches 61.6% GSM8K Maj@1 and 69.2% Maj@5, and 33.6% MATH-500 Maj@1 and 37.6% Maj@5, outperforming SFT, RFT, and STaR+.
  • On MBPP with Llama-3.2-1B, ReVISE achieves 33.1% Pass@1 versus SFT 30.0% and STaR+ 30.7%.
  • Confidence-aware sampling using `M([eos]|x)` reaches 33.9% at eight sampled candidates on GSM8K, compared with 33.2% unweighted majority and 32.7% likelihood-based scoring; curriculum learning improves accuracy from 22.6% to 28.1% and verification AUROC from 71% to 76%.

Methods

  • ReVISE trains an LLM in two curriculum stages with preference learning: Stage 1 learns self-verification by preferring `[eos]` for correct outputs and `[refine]` for incorrect outputs; Stage 2 learns self-correction by constructing preference pairs where a correct reasoning path follows an incorrect one.
  • Training uses SFT plus DPO-style preference loss, with λ = 0.1, AdamW, learning rates 1e-4 or 1e-5, batch size 32 for fine-tuning and 64 for preference tuning, and one epoch.
  • Experiments use Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct, and Gemma-2-2B; evaluation is on GSM8K, MATH-500, MBPP, and transfer from MATH to GSM8K, with Maj@K and confidence-aware majority voting.

Limitations

  • The paper states that Stage 2 training slightly degrades self-verification accuracy, possibly due to catastrophic forgetting, and that improving self-verification and self-correction without compromising overall performance remains future work.
  • The paper states that ReVISE is trained for single-pass refinement, while iterative refinement is explored only at test time and left as an exciting avenue for future work.
  • Evident from the text: evaluation is limited to math and coding benchmarks and a small set of model families/sizes, with no human evaluation or broader-domain assessment reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.14565

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

13 of 21 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 1

    The autoregressive nature of LLMs constrains their ability to revisit and revise prior steps.

    “This issue is further exacerbated by the autoregressive nature of LLMs, which constrains their ability to revisit and revise prior steps (Bachmann & Nagarajan, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bachmann & Nagarajan, 2024 source
  • Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    ReVISE improves accuracy from 33.2 to 36.0% on MATH (Maj@3) with Llama3 8B.

    “and from 33.2 → 36.0% on MATH (Maj@3) (Hendrycks et al., 2021) with Llama3 8B.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hendrycks et al., 2021 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Approaches such as Refine struggle when combined with existing models on complex tasks.

    “For instance, unlike approaches such as Refine (Madaan et al., 2023), which struggle when combined with existing models on complex tasks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Madaan et al., 2023 source

      Section 4 (Analysis; page unavailable) reports that SELF-REFINE struggled with the weaker Vicuna-13B model during refinement. Section 6 (Limitations and Discussion; page unavailable) says the approach requires sufficient few-shot or instruction-following ability. These passages support a model-dependent limitation, not the broader claim that it struggles with existing models on complex tasks generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    STaR iteratively fine-tunes models on self-generated solutions but struggles with compounding errors due to the absence of explicit verification.

    “STaR (Zelikman et al., 2022) iteratively fine-tunes models on self-generated solutions but struggles with compounding errors due to the absence of explicit verification.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zelikman et al., 2022 source

      The Conclusion (p. 9) confirms that STaR repeatedly fine-tunes on model-generated rationales. It also notes that poor rationales can confound the approach, but does not describe compounding errors as the cause of its difficulties. Algorithm 1 (p. 4) explicitly filters rationales using ground-truth answers, so the claim that STaR lacks explicit verification is too broad, even though that filter does not verify the reasoning itself. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    SCoRe requires approximately 1.5 million generations for 3,000 steps with a batch size of 512.

    “While SCoRe relies on costly online reinforcement learning and requires extensive reasoning path generation (resulting in approximately 1.5 million generations for 3,000 steps with a batch size of 512), ReVISE is significantly more efficient.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar et al., 2024 source

      Table 5 reports 3,000 training steps and a batch size of 512 for SCoRe on MATH, whose product is approximately 1.5 million batch items. It does not report 1.5 million generations: Sections 5.1 and 5.2 describe two-attempt training, so the number of generated responses cannot be established from that multiplication alone. Table 5 also gives different settings for MBPP. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    ReVISE enhances reasoning performance beyond prior methods, improving accuracy from 27.1 to 31.1% on GSM8K (Maj@3) with Llama3 1B.

    “Notably, ReVISE enhances reasoning performance beyond prior methods, improving accuracy from 27.1 → 31.1% on GSM8K (Maj@3) (Cobbe et al., 2021) with Llama3 1B (Dubey et al., 2024)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cobbe et al., 2021 source
    • cites Dubey et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    V-STaR extends STaR by jointly training a verifier alongside the generator, leveraging both correct and incorrect responses to improve self-assessment, though it still depends on largescale self-generated data.

    “V-STaR (Hosseini et al., 2024) extends STaR by jointly training a verifier alongside the generator, leveraging both correct and incorrect responses to improve self-assessment, though it still depends on largescale self-generated data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hosseini et al., 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    RL-based fine-tuning is ineffective without supervised initialization.

    “However, discovering high-quality solutions remains a challenge, as (Luong et al., 2024) shows that RL-based fine-tuning is ineffective without supervised initialization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luong et al., 2024 source

      Section 3.1 says ReFT uses a supervised warm-up to give the model basic problem-solving skills before RL, and the Ablation Study says warm-up helps constrain policy exploration. But the paper does not show that RL-based fine-tuning is ineffective without supervised initialization; its reported policy collapse occurs when the KL coefficient is set to zero, not when warm-up is omitted. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    Discovering high-quality solutions remains a challenge.

    “However, discovering high-quality solutions remains a challenge, as (Luong et al., 2024) shows that RL-based fine-tuning is ineffective without supervised initialization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luong et al., 2024 source

      Section 3.1 says ReFT uses a supervised warm-up to give the model basic problem-solving skills before reinforcement learning. The Ablation Study says this warm-up helps constrain exploration, but it does not show that RL-based fine-tuning is ineffective without it. The paper also lists developing a warm-up-free method as future work (Section 7); the citing sentence states the necessity of supervised initialization more strongly than the evidence supports. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § B.3. Quantify the Verifying Performance. · p. 13

    V-STaR uses a separately trained verifier.

    “even though V-STaR uses a separately trained verifier.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hosseini et al., 2024 source

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    On MATH-500 with Gemma-2-2B, ReVISE achieves higher accuracy than SCoRe (23.2% vs 23.0%).

    “Despite this large efficiency gap, ReVISE achieves higher accuracy than SCoRe on the MATH-500 benchmark using the same Gemma2-2B model, as shown in Table 6.”
    • Also stated in: § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13 · plain
      “| SCoRe | 23.0 | x1 |”
    • Also stated in: § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13 · plain
      “| ReVISE (Ours) | 23.2 | x30 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar et al., 2024 source

      The Models section says the paper fine-tunes Gemini 1.5 Flash for MATH, and Table 2 reports SCoRe results on MATH-500. Searches for ReVISE, Gemma-2-2B, and the 23.2% versus 23.0% comparison found no passage addressing the claimed head-to-head result; the paper’s 23.0% figure is an improvement over its base model, not the stated SCoRe accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    Comparisons with SCoRe use SCoRe's results from the original paper because no open-source code is available.

    “All comparisons utilize SCoRe's results from the original paper, as there is a lack of open-source code.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumar et al., 2024 source

      The source reports SCoRe results in Tables 2 and 3, so it provides original-paper results that could be used for comparison. It does not say that open-source code is unavailable or establish which results the citing authors used; searches for code availability and use of original-paper results did not resolve those points. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.3. Quantify the Verifying Performance. · p. 13

    On GSM8K with Llama-3.2-1B, ReVISE achieves AUROC 76.0%, outperforming the V-STaR verifier's 69.5%.

    “As shown in Table 7, ReVISE achieves an AUROC of 76.0%, outperforming the V-STaR verifier, which achieves 69.5%, even though V-STaR uses a separately trained verifier.”
    • Also stated in: § B.3. Quantify the Verifying Performance. · p. 13 · plain
      “| V-STaR verifier | 69.5 |”
    • Also stated in: § B.3. Quantify the Verifying Performance. · p. 13 · plain
      “| ReVISE (Ours) | 76.0 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hosseini et al., 2024 source

      The Introduction and Models section describe V-STaR as using a verifier trained separately from its generator, including on GSM8K. They do not report AUROC values of 69.5% or 76.0%, a ReVISE comparison, or a Llama-3.2-1B evaluation; the Models section instead lists LLaMA2 and CodeLLaMA 7B and 13B models. The numerical comparison is therefore not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves the reasoning performance of LLMs.

    “Our experiments on various reasoning tasks demonstrate that ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves the reasoning performance of LLMs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis on the self-verification confidence of ReVISE. · p. 8

    With eight sampled candidates, M([eos]|x)-based scoring achieves an accuracy of 33.9%, compared to 33.2% for unweighted majority and 32.7% for likelihood-based.

    “For example, with eight sampled candidates, M ([ eos ] | x ) -based scoring achieves an accuracy of 33.9%, compared to 33.2% (unweighted majority), and 32.7% (likelihood-based).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis on the self-verification confidence of ReVISE. · p. 8

    Training with GSM240K improved the performance of the SFT baseline, but ReVISE still exhibited better performance.

    “while training with GSM240K improved the performance of the SFT baseline, ReVISE still exhibited better performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1. Main Results · p. 6

    ReVISE achieves the highest Maj@1 on both GSM8K and MATH-500.

    “It is worth noting that for both GSM8K and MATH-500, ReVISE achieves the highest Maj@1, indicating that ReVISE is already strong without the proposed sampling scheme.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 4.2. Inference Scalability of ReVISE · p. 6

    ReVISE benefits under limited number of samples (N=2), while majority voting does not show improvement.

    “Furthermore, our method even benefits under limited number of samples ( N = 2 ), while majority voting does not show improvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis on the self-verification confidence of ReVISE. · p. 8

    Incorrect responses tend to have lower [eos] probabilities, whereas correct responses exhibit higher [eos] probabilities.

    “incorrect responses tend to have lower [ eos ] probabilities, whereas correct responses exhibit higher [ eos ] probabilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1. Main Results · p. 6

    With the proposed confidence-aware majority voting, ReVISE marked a 4.0% gain after refinement and consistently outperforms other baselines under five sampled answers.

    “In addition, with the proposed confidence-aware majority voting, ReVISE marked a 4.0% gain after refinement and consistently outperforms other baselines under five sampled answers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 3.3. Verification Confidence-Aware Sampling · p. 5

    The proposed confidence-aware sampling approach calibrates traditional majority voting by weighting predictions based on model-derived confidence, showing effective scaling at test time.

    “This approach calibrates the traditional majority voting method by weighting predictions based on their modelderived confidence, showing effective scaling at test time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    The proposed sampling scheme is more efficient than other sampling strategies when applied to models trained with ReVISE.

    “Finally, we show that the proposed sampling scheme is more efficient than other sampling strategies when applied to models trained with ReVISE, further enhancing the performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 3.2. ReVISE: Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification · p. 4

    Leveraging past failure trajectories aids in ultimately achieving successful reasoning.

    “We also observe that leveraging past failure trajectories aids in ultimately achieving successful reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1. Main Results · p. 6

    ReVISE surpasses all baseline approaches on MBPP, achieving a Pass@1 score of 33.1%, outperforming SFT (30.0%) and STaR+ (30.7%).

    “Specifically, ReVISE surpasses all baseline approaches, achieving a Pass@1 score of 33.1%, notably outperforming strong baselines such as SFT (30.0%) and STaR + (30.7%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.1. Main Results · p. 6

    ReVISE attains 33.6% for Maj@1, significantly outperforming SFT (30.4%) and few-shot CoT (23.4%) on MATH-500 with Llama-3.1-8B.

    “For instance, ReVISE attains 33.6% for Maj@1, significantly outperforming SFT (30.4%) and fewshot CoT (23.4%) on MATH-500 with Llama-3.1-8B.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis on the self-verification confidence of ReVISE. · p. 9

    ReVISE outperforms both First and Retry baselines.

    “As shown in Figure 7, ReVISE outperforms both First and Retry .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Additional Analysis and Ablation · p. 7

    The model without curriculum learning achieves an AUROC of 71%, while two-stage curriculum learning improves this to 76%.

    “Notably, the model without curriculum learning achieves an AUROC of 71%, while two-stage curriculum learning improves this to 76%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    ReVISE consistently improves accuracy without relying on external feedback mechanisms.

    “Furthermore, our experimental results show that ReVISE consistently improves accuracy without relying on external feedback mechanisms, which often degrade performance on complex reasoning tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: External feedback mechanisms often degrade performance on complex reasoning tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Analysis on the self-verification confidence of ReVISE. · p. 9

    ReVISE achieves an accuracy of 8.8% using Llama-3.2-1B, and 61.5% using Llama-3.1-8B on GSM8K after training on MATH.

    “For example, ReVISE achieves an accuracy of 8.8% using Llama-3.2-1B, and 61.5% using Llama-3.1-8 B.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5. Conclusion · p. 9

    The self-verification mechanism and a confidence-aware decoding strategy enhance model performance without introducing additional computational overhead.

    “Furthermore, the self-verification mechanism and a confidence-aware decoding strategy enhance model performance without introducing additional computational overhead.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    ReVISE requires 50,000 generations for the entire dataset, a 30× reduction in training cost compared to SCoRe.

    “Specifically, ReVISE constructs preference pairs by generating a single reasoning path per sample, totaling only 50,000 generations for the entire dataset. This corresponds to a 30× reduction in training cost compared to SCoRe.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Conclusion · p. 9

    ReVISE significantly improves first-attempt accuracy while maintaining efficiency.

    “Our results across various reasoning benchmarks show that ReVISE significantly improves firstattempt accuracy while maintaining efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.4. Extended Test-time Scaling Behavior Experiment. · p. 14

    On GSM8K with Llama-3.2-1B, ReVISE consistently outperforms SFT, RFT, and STaR+ across Maj@K for K=2 to 64, reaching 37.7% at Maj@64.

    “As shown in Table 8, ReVISE consistently outperforms every baseline across every sample size. Notably, ReVISE reaches 37.7% accuracy at Maj@64, representing a substantial improvement over prior methods.”
    • Also stated in: § B.4. Extended Test-time Scaling Behavior Experiment. · p. 14 · plain
      “| ReVISE (Ours) | 28.3% ± 0.7 | 32.5% ± 0.9 | 34.9% ± 0.5 | 36.2% ± 0.4 | 37.2% ± 0.5 | 37.7% ± 0.5 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    After two additional iterations, ReVISE achieves 25.8% accuracy on MATH-500, with training cost 15 times smaller than SCoRe.

    “For instance, after two additional iterations, ReVISE achieves 25.8% accuracy, which further increases its performance margin over SCoRe while incurring a training cost that is 15 times smaller.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.1. Comparison with DPO · p. 13

    On Llama-3.2-1B, ReVISE achieves higher accuracy than DPO on GSM8K and MATH-500 (28.1% vs 22.6% on GSM8K; 13.4% vs 10.8% on MATH-500).

    “| DPO | 22.6 | 10.8 |”
    • Also stated in: § B.1. Comparison with DPO · p. 13 · plain
      “| ReVISE (Ours) | 28.1 | 13.4 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 1

    RL is a complex and often unstable procedure.

    “However, RL is a complex and often unstable procedure (Mnih et al., 2015; Rafailov et al., 2023)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mnih et al., 2015 source
    • cites Rafailov et al., 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    ReVISE is an efficient and effective framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification.

    “In this work, we propose Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification (ReVISE), an efficient and effective framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    LLMs struggle with self-correction.

    “though Huang et al. (2024) argue that LLMs struggle with self-correction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2. ReVISE: Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification · p. 4

    Stage 2 explicitly defines when and how refinements should be applied, preventing overgeneration and improving response accuracy.

    “It is worth noting that stage 2 explicitly defines when and how refinements should be applied, preventing overgeneration and improving response accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2. ReVISE: Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification · p. 4

    By distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary refinements, the model ensures efficient self-correction while simulating multi-step reasoning for complex scenarios.

    “By distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary refinements, the model ensures efficient self-correction while simulating multi-step reasoning for complex scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    During inference, ReVISE enjoys natural test-time scaling by integrating self-verification and correction capabilities, further enhanced by confidence-aware decoding.

    “During inference, our approach enjoys natural test-time scaling by integrating self-verification and correction capabilities, further enhanced by our proposed confidence-aware decoding mechanism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.3. Additional Analysis and Ablation · p. 7

    The self-correction task D_correct is particularly challenging and may lead to catastrophic forgetting.

    “indicating that the self-correction task D correct is particularly challenging and may lead to catastrophic forgetting (McCloskey & Cohen, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McCloskey & Cohen, 1989 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    ReVISE learns self-verification during training, reducing train-test discrepancy and enabling more natural verification at inference.

    “Unlike prior approaches, ReVISE learns self-verification during training, reducing train-test discrepancy and enabling more natural verification at inference.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.1. Problem setup: Learning to Verify and Refine · p. 3

    The modeling of the [refine] token has distinct advantages as one can access the model's verification confidence of v.

    “Note that this modeling has distinct advantages as one can access the model's verification confidence of v .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2. Inference Scalability of ReVISE · p. 6

    Majority voting does not use confidence and hence cannot benefit from small samples.

    “This is because majority voting does not use confidence and, hence, can not benefit from small samples (e.g., if all predictions are disjoint, the majority voting does not work).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.1. Main Results · p. 6

    ReVISE enhances problem-solving accuracy and improves test-time scaling abilities.

    “These results demonstrate that ReVISE enhances problem-solving accuracy and improves test-time scaling abilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2. Related Work · p. 2

    ReVISE targets complex reasoning tasks enabled by self-correction through an explicit verification process and two-stage curricula.

    “While they focus on reducing the likelihood of unsafe outputs with limited second attempts to refuse answers, our approach targets complex reasoning tasks enabled by self-correction through an explicit verification process and two-stage curricula.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § A. Experimental Details · p. 12

    The study used the provided train and test splits, ensuring consistency across all experiments.

    “We used the provided train and test splits, ensuring consistency across all experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § B.2. Iterative Training and Comparison with Self-Correction Work. · p. 13

    ReVISE is more practical and scalable for self-correction tasks and can leverage iterative refinement to reach higher performance.

    “These results demonstrate that ReVISE is not only more practical and scalable for self-correction tasks, but also able to leverage iterative refinement to reach even higher performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § A. Experimental Details · p. 12

    The study fixed the evaluation batch size to 128 for a fair comparison.

    “Since the output depends on the evaluation batch size, we fixed the batch size to 128 for a fair comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § B.1. Comparison with DPO · p. 13

    The DPO model was trained from the same supervised fine-tuned checkpoint used in training ReVISE.

    “We trained the DPO model from the same supervised fine-tuned checkpoint, which was used in training ReVISE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § A. Experimental Details · p. 12

    The study collected 16 valid reasoning paths along with corresponding code solutions that successfully pass all test cases for each MBPP problem.

    “For each problem, we collected 16 valid reasoning paths along with corresponding code solutions that successfully pass all test cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § B.3. Quantify the Verifying Performance. · p. 13

    ReVISE's intrinsic verifier is effective, resulting in improved performance and enhanced test-time scalability.

    “These experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of ReVISE's intrinsic verifier, resulting in improved performance and enhanced test-time scalability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
48 of 48

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reliance on expensive external models for verification introduces computational inefficiencies.

    “However, the reliance on expensive external models introduces computational inefficiencies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    RL does not explicitly model the verification of intermediate reasoning steps, making it difficult to assess whether a model is confident in its current trajectory or prone to deviating toward incorrect conclusions.

    “and it does not explicitly model the verification of intermediate reasoning steps, making it difficult to assess whether a model is confident in its current trajectory or prone to deviating toward incorrect conclusions”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    External feedback mechanisms often degrade performance on complex reasoning tasks.

    “which often degrade performance on complex reasoning tasks.”
3 of 3

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Figure 2 names a different 8B model from the experimental setup

    Minor

    The Figure 2 caption identifies its MATH model as Llama-3.2-8B, while the training-model details identify the non-instruction-tuned 8B model used as Llama-3.1-8B.

  • DPO baseline accuracy differs from Table 5

    Minor

    The paragraph gives the DPO baseline's GSM8K accuracy as 22.7%, whereas Table 5 reports 22.6%. Both values are printed to one decimal place.

  • Table 3 caption overstates which methods trail zero-shot CoT

    Minor

    The caption says all methods except ReVISE underperform zero-shot CoT, but in its GSM240K column both SFT (54.8) and RFT (50.9) exceed zero-shot CoT (48.6).

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2020b.
  2. Hosseini, A., Yuan, X., Malkin, N., Courville, A., Sordoni, A., and Agarwal, R. V-star: Training verifiers for selftaught reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv: , 2024.
  3. Huang, J., Chen, X., Mishra, S., Zheng, H. S., Yu, A. W., Song, X., and Zhou, D. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024.
  4. LeCun, Y. A path towards autonomous machine intelligence. Open Review , 2022.
  5. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Selfconsistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, H., Oh, S., Kim, J., Shin, J., & Tack, J.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.14565
arXiv
2502.14565
OpenAlex
W4407806944
Semantic Scholar
a0ba3a62fc6761b1c0528b554d9ff335d26893e8
Cited by
0
References
42
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
self-verification, self-correction, large language models, curriculum learning, self-awareness, reasoning paths

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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