PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Self-Verifying Reflection Helps Transformers with CoT Reasoning

Open access
Yu, Zhongwei, Xia, Wannian, Yan, Xue, Xu, Bo, Zhang, Haifeng, Du, Yali, Wang, Jun·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.12157

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.

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?

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

  1. 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
  2. Eric C. Chi and Kenneth Lange. Techniques for Solving Sudoku Puzzles. May 2013. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1203.2295. arXiv: 1203.2295 [math]. · DOI
  3. Karl Cobbe et al. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. Nov. 2021. arXiv: 2110. 14168 [cs].
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Kaiying Hou et al. Universal Length Generalization with Turing Programs. July 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03310. arXiv: 2407.03310 [cs]. · DOI
  12. 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
  13. Aviral Kumar et al. Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning. Sept. 2024. arXiv: 2409.12917 [cs]. · arXiv
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Hunter Lightman et al. Let's Verify Step by Step. May 2023. arXiv: 2305.20050 [cs]. · arXiv
  17. Liangchen Luo et al. Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision. June 2024. arXiv: 2406.06592 [cs]. · arXiv
  18. 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
  19. OpenAI et al. GPT-4o System Card. Oct. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21276. arXiv: 2410.21276 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. John Schulman et al. High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimation. Oct. 2018. arXiv: 1506.02438 [cs]. · arXiv
  25. John Schulman et al. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. Aug. 2017. arXiv: 1707. 06347 [cs].
  26. 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
  27. Zhihong Shao et al. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models. Apr. 2024. arXiv: 2402.03300 [cs]. · arXiv
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. An Yang et al. Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement. Sept. 2024. arXiv: 2409.12122 [cs]. · arXiv
  37. 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
  38. 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

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)
OpenAlex
W4415269719
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
1.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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