The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Self-Verifying Reflection Helps Transformers with CoT Reasoning
Open accessAbstract
Advanced large language models (LLMs) frequently reflect in reasoning chain-of-thoughts (CoTs), where they self-verify the correctness of current solutions and explore alternatives. However, given recent findings that LLMs detect limited errors in CoTs, how reflection contributes to empirical improvements remains unclear. To analyze this issue, in this paper, we present a minimalistic reasoning framework to support basic self-verifying reflection for small transformers without natural language, which ensures analytic clarity and reduces the cost of comprehensive experiments. Theoretically, we prove that self-verifying reflection guarantees improvements if verification errors are properly bounded. Experimentally, we show that tiny transformers, with only a few million parameters, benefit from self-verification in both training and reflective execution, reaching remarkable LLM-level performance in integer multiplication and Sudoku. Similar to LLM results, we find that reinforcement learning (RL) improves in-distribution performance and incentivizes frequent reflection for tiny transformers, yet RL mainly optimizes shallow statistical patterns without faithfully reducing verification errors. In conclusion, integrating generative transformers with discriminative verification inherently facilitates CoT reasoning, regardless of scaling and natural language.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Building on this direction, self-verifying reflection [75], MA-LoT [76], and Socratic self-refine [77] introduce iterative verification loops in which symbolic consistency checks guide the refinement of generated solution paths.”
From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [75]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. Physics of Language Models: Part 3.1, Knowledge Storage and Extraction. July 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.14316. arXiv: 2309.14316 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Eric C. Chi and Kenneth Lange. Techniques for Solving Sudoku Puzzles. May 2013. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1203.2295. arXiv: 1203.2295 [math]. · DOI
- Karl Cobbe et al. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. Nov. 2021. arXiv: 2110. 14168 [cs].
- DeepSeek-AI et al. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Rein- forcement Learning. Jan. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948. arXiv: 2501.12948 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Yuntian Deng, Yejin Choi, and Stuart Shieber. From Explicit CoT to Implicit CoT: Learning to Internalize CoT Step by Step. May 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.14838. arXiv: 2405.14838 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Nouha Dziri et al. Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality. Oct. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.18654. arXiv: 2305.18654 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Guhao Feng et al. Towards Revealing the Mystery behind Chain of Thought: A Theoretical Perspective. Dec. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.15408. arXiv: 2305.15408 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Yao Fu et al. "Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning". In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, July 2023, pp. 10421-10430.
- Alex Havrilla et al. GLoRe: When, Where, and How to Improve LLM Reasoning via Global and Local Refinements. June 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.10963. arXiv: 2402.10963 [cs]. · DOI
- Yancheng He et al. Can Large Language Models Detect Errors in Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning? Mar. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19361. arXiv: 2502.19361 [cs]. · DOI
- Kaiying Hou et al. Universal Length Generalization with Turing Programs. July 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03310. arXiv: 2407.03310 [cs]. · DOI
- Takeshi Kojima et al. Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Reasoners. Jan. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.11916. arXiv: 2205.11916 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Aviral Kumar et al. Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning. Sept. 2024. arXiv: 2409.12917 [cs]. · arXiv
- Nathan Lambert et al. Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training. Apr. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.15124. arXiv: 2411.15124 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhiyuan Li et al. Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems. Sept. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12875. arXiv: 2402.12875 [cs, stat]. · DOI
- Hunter Lightman et al. Let's Verify Step by Step. May 2023. arXiv: 2305.20050 [cs]. · arXiv
- Liangchen Luo et al. Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision. June 2024. arXiv: 2406.06592 [cs]. · arXiv
- Aman Madaan et al. Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback. May 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17651. arXiv: 2303.17651 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- OpenAI et al. GPT-4o System Card. Oct. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21276. arXiv: 2410.21276 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Long Ouyang et al. "Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback". In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022). Mar. 2022. arXiv: 2203.02155 [cs]. · arXiv
- Ben Prystawski, Michael Y. Li, and Noah D. Goodman. Why Think Step by Step? Reasoning Emerges from the Locality of Experience. Nov. 2023. arXiv: 2304.03843 [cs]. · arXiv
- Yiwei Qin et al. O1 Replication Journey: A Strategic Progress Report -Part 1. Oct. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.18982. arXiv: 2410.18982 [cs]. · DOI
- Yuxiao Qu et al. Recursive Introspection: Teaching Language Model Agents How to Self- Improve. July 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18219. arXiv: 2407.18219 [cs]. · DOI
- John Schulman et al. High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimation. Oct. 2018. arXiv: 1506.02438 [cs]. · arXiv
- John Schulman et al. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. Aug. 2017. arXiv: 1707. 06347 [cs].
- Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units. June 2016. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1508.07909. arXiv: 1508. 07909 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhihong Shao et al. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models. Apr. 2024. arXiv: 2402.03300 [cs]. · arXiv
- Charlie Snell et al. Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally Can Be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters. Aug. 2024. arXiv: 2408.03314 [cs]. · arXiv
- Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2018. ISBN: 978-0-262-36401-0.
- Yijun Tian et al. TinyLLM: Learning a Small Student from Multiple Large Language Models. Mar. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04616. arXiv: 2402.04616 [cs]. · DOI
- Rasul Tutunov et al. Why Can Large Language Models Generate Correct Chain-of-Thoughts? June 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13571. arXiv: 2310.13571 [cs]. · DOI
- Ashish Vaswani et al. "Attention Is All You Need". In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Long Beach, CA, USA, 2017.
- Jun Wang. A Tutorial on LLM Reasoning: Relevant Methods behind ChatGPT O1. Feb. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10867. arXiv: 2502.10867 [cs]. · DOI
- Jason Wei et al. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. Jan. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11903. arXiv: 2201.11903 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Sang Michael Xie et al. DoReMi: Optimizing Data Mixtures Speeds Up Language Model Pretraining. Nov. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.10429. arXiv: 2305.10429 [cs]. · DOI
- An Yang et al. Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement. Sept. 2024. arXiv: 2409.12122 [cs]. · arXiv
- Yang Yue et al. Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model? Apr. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13837. arXiv: 2504.13837 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhihan Zhang et al. Learn Beyond The Answer: Training Language Models with Reflection for Mathematical Reasoning. Oct. 2024. DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2406 . 12050. arXiv: 2406.12050 [cs]. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ning, X., Tieu, K., Fu, D., Wei, T., Li, Z., Bei, Y., Zou, J., Ai, M., Liu, Z., Li, T.-W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18747
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, Z., Xia, W., Yan, X., Xu, B., Zhang, H., Du, Y., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- King's College London (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 48535-48578
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2510.12157
- OpenAlex
- W4415269719
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 1.91
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- chain-of-thought reasoning, reinforcement learning, integer multiplication, Sudoku, generative transformers
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