Reliable Self-Improvement Training by Verifying Reasoning, Not Just Answers
Open accessAbstract
Self-improvement training, where models learn from self-generated solutions, promises sustained capability gains but suffers from a pervasive failure mode: across multiple rounds, compounding reasoning errors cause accuracy to stall or degrade. We trace this drift to standard filtering criteria that retain solutions based solely on final answer correctness, which lets lucky guesses (correct answers with flawed reasoning) contaminate the training data. We propose Verified Self-Improvement (VSI), a framework that conditions data retention on step-level structural integrity rather than just the final output. VSI validates solutions by recomputing arithmetic steps via a computer-algebra library (sympy), checking intermediate consistency, and enforcing domain constraints. Evaluating VSI on GSM8K with Qwen3-4B-Thinking across 5 rounds of self-improvement against four baselines (no verification, outcome verification, majority voting, and VSI with DPO) shows that VSI rejects approximately 34% of correct-answer solutions, successfully isolating lucky guesses. This cleaner training signal drives sustained accuracy gains across all rounds (80.5% to 91.0%), whereas outcome verification plateaus and unverified training collapses. Finally, converting VSI checks into DPO preference pairs trains the model to distinguish sound reasoning from lucky answers, boosting reward accuracy from 46% to 63%. VSI offers a simple, reproducible recipe for robust self-improvement whenever automated reasoning checks are available.
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
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.
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
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To test whether a label-free self-consistency signal could stand in for checking the reasoning, we include a majority voting baseline (Wang et al., 2023).”
What Do World Models Learn in RL? Probing Latent Representations in Learned Environment Simulators
Zhang, X. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21546 · cited 1×
“In domains without a cheap external check—reinforcement learning with learned world models, for instance—the check might instead read the model’s own internal state, which has been shown to encode environment variables in a structured, linearly decodable form (Zhang, 2026).”
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Zhang, X.
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Xinyu
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2603.21558
- OpenAlex
- W7140176725
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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 › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- reasoning verification, training data filtering, symbolic computation, GSM8K, reward modeling, large language models
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