Escaping the Cognitive Well: Efficient Competition Math with Off-the-Shelf Models

In the past year, custom and unreleased math reasoning models reached gold medal performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). Similar performance was then reported using large-scale inference on publicly available models but at prohibitive costs (e.g., 3000 USD per problem). In this work, we present an inference pipeline that attains best-in-class performance on IMO-style math problems at an average inference cost orders of magnitude below competing methods while using only general-purpose off-the-shelf models. Our method relies on insights about grader failure in solver-grader pipelines, which we call the Cognitive Well (iterative refinement converging to a wrong solution that the solver as well as the pipeline's internal grader consider to be basically correct). Our pipeline addresses these failure modes through conjecture extraction, wherein candidate lemmas are isolated from generated solutions and independently verified alongside their negations in a fresh environment (context detachment). On IMO-ProofBench Advanced (PB-Adv), our pipeline achieves 67.1 percent performance using Gemini 3.0 Pro with an average cost per question of approximately 31 USD. At the time of evaluation, this represented the state-of-the-art on PB-Adv among both public and unreleased models, and more than doubles the success rate of the next best publicly accessible pipeline, all at a fraction of the cost.

AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms

Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications. Recent AI models show promise in vericoding, but a unified methodology for cross-paradigm evaluation is lacking. Existing benchmarks test only individual languages/tools (e.g., Dafny, Verus, and Lean) and each covers very different tasks, so the performance numbers are not directly comparable. We address this gap with AlgoVeri, a benchmark that evaluates vericoding of $77$ classical algorithms in Dafny, Verus, and Lean. By enforcing identical functional contracts, AlgoVeri reveals critical capability gaps in verification systems. While frontier models achieve tractable success in Dafny ($40.3$% for Gemini-3 Flash), where high-level abstractions and SMT automation simplify the workflow, performance collapses under the systems-level memory constraints of Verus ($24.7$%) and the explicit proof construction required by Lean (7.8%). Beyond aggregate metrics, we uncover a sharp divergence in test-time compute dynamics: Gemini-3 effectively utilizes iterative repair to boost performance (e.g., tripling pass rates in Dafny), whereas GPT-OSS saturates early. Finally, our error analysis shows that language design affects the refinement trajectory: while Dafny allows models to focus on logical correctness, Verus and Lean trap models in persistent syntactic and semantic barriers. All data and evaluation code can be found at https://github.com/haoyuzhao123/algoveri.

Contextual Drag: How Errors in the Context Affect LLM Reasoning

Central to many self-improvement pipelines for large language models (LLMs) is the assumption that models can improve by reflecting on past mistakes. We study a phenomenon termed contextual drag: the presence of failed attempts in the context biases subsequent generations toward structurally similar errors. Across evaluations of 11 proprietary and open-weight models on 8 reasoning tasks, contextual drag induces 10-20% performance drops, and iterative self-refinement in models with severe contextual drag can collapse into self-deterioration. Structural analysis using tree edit distance reveals that subsequent reasoning trajectories inherit structurally similar error patterns from the context. We demonstrate that neither external feedback nor successful self-verification suffices to eliminate this effect. While mitigation strategies such as fallback-behavior fine-tuning and context denoising yield partial improvements, they fail to fully restore baseline performance, positioning contextual drag as a persistent failure mode in current reasoning architectures.

Metacognitive Reuse: Turning Recurring LLM Reasoning Into Concise Behaviors

Large language models (LLMs) now solve multi-step problems by emitting extended chains of thought. During the process, they often re-derive the same intermediate steps across problems, inflating token usage and latency. This saturation of the context window leaves less capacity for exploration. We study a simple mechanism that converts recurring reasoning fragments into concise, reusable "behaviors" (name + instruction) via the model's own metacognitive analysis of prior traces. These behaviors are stored in a "behavior handbook" which supplies them to the model in-context at inference or distills them into parameters via supervised fine-tuning. This approach achieves improved test-time reasoning across three different settings - 1) Behavior-conditioned inference: Providing the LLM relevant behaviors in-context during reasoning reduces number of reasoning tokens by up to 46% while matching or improving baseline accuracy; 2) Behavior-guided self-improvement: Without any parameter updates, the model improves its own future reasoning by leveraging behaviors from its own past problem solving attempts. This yields up to 10% higher accuracy than a naive critique-and-revise baseline; and 3) Behavior-conditioned SFT: SFT on behavior-conditioned reasoning traces is more effective at converting non-reasoning models into reasoning models as compared to vanilla SFT. Together, these results indicate that turning slow derivations into fast procedural hints enables LLMs to remember how to reason, not just what to conclude.

Why is Your Language Model a Poor Implicit Reward Model?

Reward models are key to language model post-training and inference pipelines. Conveniently, recent work showed that every language model defines an implicit reward model (IM-RM), without requiring any architectural changes. However, such IM-RMs tend to generalize worse, especially out-of-distribution, compared to explicit reward models (EX-RMs) that apply a dedicated linear head over the hidden representations of a language model. The existence of a generalization gap is puzzling, as EX-RMs and IM-RMs are nearly identical. They can be trained using the same data, loss function, and language model, and differ only in how the reward is computed. Towards a fundamental understanding of the implicit biases underlying different reward model types, we investigate the root cause of this gap. Our main finding, backed by theory and experiments, is that IM-RMs rely more heavily on superficial token-level cues. Consequently, they often generalize worse than EX-RMs under token-level distribution shifts, as well as in-distribution. Furthermore, we provide evidence against alternative hypotheses for the generalization gap. Most notably, we challenge the intuitive claim that IM-RMs struggle in tasks where generation is harder than verification because they can operate both as a verifier and a generator. Taken together, our results highlight that seemingly minor design choices can substantially impact the generalization behavior of reward models.

LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?

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.

Ineq-Comp: Benchmarking Human-Intuitive Compositional Reasoning in Automated Theorem Proving on Inequalities

LLM-based formal proof assistants (e.g., in Lean) hold great promise for automating mathematical discovery. But beyond syntactic correctness, do these systems truly understand mathematical structure as humans do? We investigate this question through the lens of mathematical inequalities -- a fundamental tool across many domains. While modern provers can solve basic inequalities, we probe their ability to handle human-intuitive compositionality. We introduce Ineq-Comp, a benchmark built from elementary inequalities through systematic transformations, including variable duplication, algebraic rewriting, and multi-step composition. Although these problems remain easy for humans, we find that most provers -- including Goedel, STP, and Kimina-7B -- struggle significantly. DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B shows relative robustness -- possibly because it is trained to decompose the problems into sub-problems -- but still suffers a 20\% performance drop (pass@32). Strikingly, performance remains poor for all models even when formal proofs of the constituent parts are provided in context, revealing that the source of weakness is indeed in compositional reasoning. Our results expose a persisting gap between the generalization behavior of current AI provers and human mathematical intuition.

AdaptMI: Adaptive Skill-based In-context Math Instruction for Small Language Models

In-context learning (ICL) allows a language model to improve its problem-solving capability when provided with suitable information in context. Since the choice of in-context information can be determined based on the problem itself, in-context learning is analogous to human learning from teachers in a classroom. Recent works (Didolkar et al., 2024a; 2024b) show that ICL performance can be improved by leveraging a frontier large language model's (LLM) ability to predict required skills to solve a problem, popularly referred to as an LLM's metacognition, and using the recommended skills to construct necessary in-context examples. While this skill-based strategy boosts ICL performance in larger models, its gains on small language models (SLMs) have been minimal, highlighting a performance gap in ICL capabilities. We investigate this gap and show that skill-based prompting can hurt SLM performance on easy questions by introducing unnecessary information, akin to cognitive overload. To address this, we introduce AdaptMI, an adaptive approach to selecting skill-based in-context Math Instructions for SLMs. Inspired by cognitive load theory from human pedagogy, our method only introduces skill-based examples when the model performs poorly. We further propose AdaptMI+, which adds examples targeted to the specific skills missing from the model's responses. On 5-shot evaluations across popular math benchmarks and five SLMs (1B--7B; Qwen, Llama), AdaptMI+ improves accuracy by up to 6% over naive skill-based strategies.

What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective

The success of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) critically depends on the quality of the reward model. While this quality is primarily evaluated through accuracy, it remains unclear whether accuracy fully captures what makes a reward model an effective teacher. We address this question from an optimization perspective. First, we prove that regardless of how accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, then the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape. Consequently, even a perfectly accurate reward model can lead to extremely slow optimization, underperforming less accurate models that induce higher reward variance. We additionally show that a reward model that works well for one language model can induce low reward variance, and thus a flat objective landscape, for another. These results establish a fundamental limitation of evaluating reward models solely based on accuracy or independently of the language model they guide. Experiments using models of up to 8B parameters corroborate our theory, demonstrating the interplay between reward variance, accuracy, and reward maximization rate. Overall, our findings highlight that beyond accuracy, a reward model needs to induce sufficient variance for efficient optimization.

Weak-to-Strong Generalization Even in Random Feature Networks, Provably

Weak-to-Strong Generalization (Burns et al., 2024) is the phenomenon whereby a strong student, say GPT-4, learns a task from a weak teacher, say GPT-2, and ends up significantly outperforming the teacher. We show that this phenomenon does not require a strong learner like GPT-4. We consider student and teacher that are random feature models, described by two-layer networks with a random and fixed bottom layer and a trained top layer. A "weak" teacher, with a small number of units (i.e. random features), is trained on the population, and a "strong" student, with a much larger number of units (i.e. random features), is trained only on labels generated by the weak teacher. We demonstrate, prove, and understand how the student can outperform the teacher, even though trained only on data labeled by the teacher. We also explain how such weak-to-strong generalization is enabled by early stopping. Importantly, we also show the quantitative limits of weak-to-strong generalization in this model.