CORE: Contrastive Reflection Enables Rapid Improvements in Reasoning

Language models can use verifiable rewards to improve at a wide variety of reasoning tasks. However, both parametric (e.g. RLVR) and non-parametric (e.g. prompt optimization) approaches to doing so typically require hundreds of training samples and thousands of model rollouts, making them expensive in the best case and intractable in the worst. To address this challenge, we introduce Contrastive Reflection (CORE), a non-parametric learning algorithm that compares past reasoning traces to generate insights: short natural-language descriptions of reasoning strategies and constraints that capture differences between successful and unsuccessful problem attempts. Across four reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that CORE enables more rapid improvement than both parametric (GRPO) and non-parametric (GEPA, episodic RAG, and MemRL) methods, while using fewer rollouts. Under fixed rollout budgets with as few as five training samples, we then show that CORE also achieves comparable or greater performance gains than each baseline. Finally, we highlight how CORE is also substantially more context-efficient than non-parametric baselines, requiring fewer prompt tokens while storing learned knowledge as compact, interpretable natural-language insights. Our results therefore suggest that distilling contrasts between successful and unsuccessful reasoning traces into abstract and useful insights can provide a more efficient and interpretable route to model self-improvement than weight updates, prompt optimization, or direct reuse of stored reasoning traces.

Addressing divergent representations from causal interventions on neural networks

A common approach to mechanistic interpretability is to causally manipulate model representations via targeted interventions in order to understand what those representations encode. Here we ask whether such interventions create out-of-distribution (divergent) representations, and whether this raises concerns about how faithful their resulting explanations are to the target model in its natural state. First, we demonstrate empirically that common causal intervention techniques often do shift internal representations away from the natural distribution of the target model. Then, we provide a theoretical analysis of two classes of such divergences: `harmless' divergences that occur in the null-space of the weights and from covariance within behavioral decision boundaries, and `pernicious' divergences that activate hidden network pathways and cause dormant behavioral changes. Finally, in an effort to mitigate the pernicious cases, we modify the Counterfactual Latent (CL) loss from Grant (2025) that regularizes interventions to remain closer to the natural distributions, reducing the likelihood of harmful divergences while preserving the interpretive power of interventions. Together, these results highlight a path towards more reliable interpretability methods.