CLARity: Reasoning Consistency Alone Can Teach Reinforced Experts

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a widely adopted technique for enhancing the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the effectiveness of RLVR strongly depends on the capability of base models. This issue arises because it requires the model to have sufficient capability to perform high-quality exploration, which involves both effectiveness and diversity. Unfortunately, existing methods address this issue by imitating expert trajectories, which improve effectiveness but neglect diversity. To address this, we argue that the expert only needs to provide guidance only at critical decision points rather than the entire reasoning path. Based on this insight, we propose MENTOR: Mixed-policy Expert Navigation for Token-level Optimization of Reasoning, a framework that provides expert guidance only at critical decision points to perform effective and diverse exploration in RLVR. Extensive experiments show that MENTOR enables models capture the essence of expert strategies rather than surface imitation, thereby performing high-quality exploration and achieving superior overall performance. Our code is available online.

A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of reasoning flaws vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the structure of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning-knowledge-graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.