Peiyao Sheng

Kyuyoung Kim, Kevin Wang, Yunfei Xie et al.

Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards typically optimizes only final outcomes, which can lead to a failure mode where task accuracy improves while reasoning becomes less accurate, less complete, or even internally inconsistent. We propose verifiable process supervision (VPS), a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimizes prediction accuracy and reasoning quality. We first apply supervised fine-tuning to induce a structured reasoning format, enabling syntactic extraction of intermediate claims that are evaluated against ground-truth signals to form process-level rewards. To address the heterogeneous difficulty of reasoning subtasks, we introduce adaptive reward weighting that prioritizes components with the largest remaining errors, creating an implicit curriculum. We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals. While accuracy-only RL improves move accuracy, it sharply degrades reasoning quality, increasing win-rate error by up to 112% and reducing internal consistency by up to 69%. In contrast, VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation. At matched accuracy, judge evaluation also prefers the process-supervised models. A reasoning-space analysis further shows that, without a structured prior, accuracy-only RL converges to budget-dependent shortcuts rather than sound multi-step reasoning. These results show that VPS enables language models to reason both accurately and reliably in verifiable domains.

Anshul Nasery, Jonathan Hayase, Creston Brooks et al.

Model fingerprinting has emerged as a powerful tool for model owners to identify their shared model given API access. However, to lower false discovery rate, fight fingerprint leakage, and defend against coalitions of model users attempting to bypass detection, we argue that {\em scalability} is critical, i.e., scaling up the number of fingerprints one can embed into a model. Hence, we pose scalability as a crucial requirement for fingerprinting schemes. We experiment with fingerprint design at a scale significantly larger than previously considered, and introduce a new method, dubbed Perinucleus sampling, to generate scalable, persistent, and harmless fingerprints. We demonstrate that this scheme can add 24,576 fingerprints to a Llama-3.1-8B model -- two orders of magnitude more than existing schemes -- without degrading the model's utility. Our inserted fingerprints persist even after supervised fine-tuning on standard post-training data. We further address security risks for fingerprinting, and theoretically and empirically show how a scalable fingerprinting scheme like ours can mitigate these risks. Our code is available at https://github.com/SewoongLab/scalable-fingerprinting-of-llms

Zihan Zheng, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen et al.

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

Lucas Irwin, Arda Kaz, Peiyao Sheng et al.

Law has long been a domain that has been popular in natural language processing (NLP) applications. Reasoning (ratiocination and the ability to make connections to precedent) is a core part of the practice of the law in the real world. Nevertheless, while multiple legal datasets exist, none have thus far focused specifically on reasoning tasks. We focus on a specific aspect of the legal landscape by introducing a corporate governance reasoning benchmark (CHANCERY) to test a model's ability to reason about whether executive/board/shareholder's proposed actions are consistent with corporate governance charters. This benchmark introduces a first-of-its-kind corporate governance reasoning test for language models - modeled after real world corporate governance law. The benchmark consists of a corporate charter (a set of governing covenants) and a proposal for executive action. The model's task is one of binary classification: reason about whether the action is consistent with the rules contained within the charter. We create the benchmark following established principles of corporate governance - 24 concrete corporate governance principles established in and 79 real life corporate charters selected to represent diverse industries from a total dataset of 10k real life corporate charters. Evaluations on state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning models confirm the difficulty of the benchmark, with models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4o achieving 64.5% and 75.2% accuracy respectively. Reasoning agents exhibit superior performance, with agents based on the ReAct and CodeAct frameworks scoring 76.1% and 78.1% respectively, further confirming the advanced legal reasoning capabilities required to score highly on the benchmark. We also conduct an analysis of the types of questions which current reasoning models struggle on, revealing insights into the legal reasoning capabilities of SOTA models.