The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ThinkTwice: Jointly Optimizing Large Language Models for Reasoning and Self-Refinement
Abstract
We introduce ThinkTwice, a simple two-phase framework that jointly optimizes LLMs to solve reasoning problems and refine the answers, based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). In each pair of training steps, ThinkTwice first optimizes the model on solving reasoning problems, then optimizes it on refining its own solutions to the same problems, using the same binary correctness reward in both phases without correctness signals or critique annotations. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and two model families including Qwen3-4B and Olmo3-7B, ThinkTwice substantially improves both reasoning and refinement performance over competitive online policy optimization baselines. Specifically, on Qwen3-4B, ThinkTwice outperforms GRPO on AIME by 5 percentage points before refinement and by 11.5 points after one self-refinement step, measured by pass@4. Analysis of the training dynamics of ThinkTwice reveals an implicit rectify-then-fortify curriculum: refinement predominantly corrects errors early in training and naturally shifts toward preserving already-correct solutions as the model improves, yielding a more rectified reward signal. Our work establishes joint training of reasoning and self-refinement as a principled and effective methodology for RLVR.
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?
In the citing paper
“ThinkTwice interleaves solving and refining under the same binary reward, making self-refinement a trained capability rather than a prompting trick [103].”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [103]
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
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×
“A first class of methods is training-free and operates purely at inference time, such as Self-Refine, Reflexion, self-verification prompting, CRITIC, and self-consistency decoding (Madaan et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023; Weng et al., 2023; Gou et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022).”
Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, H., Feng, K., Lu, C., Yang, C., & Meng, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03106 · Cited by 92 · cited 1×
“…methods learn refinement behavior, existing methodologies typically rely on process supervision (Zhang et al., 2024a; Cui et al., 2025), critique annotations (Kumar et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025b), or explicit signals indicating whether the initial answer is correct (Ma et al., 2025).”
HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework
Sheng, G., Zhang, C., Ye, Z., Wu, X., Zhang, W., Zhang, R., Peng, Y., Lin, H., & Wu, C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.19256 · Cited by 74
ReST-MCTS*: LLM Self-Training via Process Reward Guided Tree Search
Zhang, D., Zhoubian, S., Hu, Z., Yue, Y., Dong, Y., & Tang, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.03816 · Cited by 32
Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective
Liu, Z., Chen, C., Li, W., Qi, P., Pang, T., Du, C., Lee, W. S., & Lin, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20783 · Cited by 8
Process Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards
Cui, G., Yuan, L., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Li, W., He, B., Fan, Y., Yu, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01456 · Cited by 3
Cited by
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
Metadata
- Authors
- Jiao, D., Wen, Q., Yang, B., Tang, Z., & Anderson, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2604.01591
- References
- 6
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.