Strategy Executability in Mathematical Reasoning: Leveraging Human-Model Differences for Effective Guidance

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has substantially improved mathematical reasoning. However, terminal correctness alone provides limited insight into the quality of high-level strategies, such as theorem selection and subgoal decomposition, when considered separately from their subsequent execution. This paper studies strategy utility, which is defined as the likelihood that a strategy supports a correct downstream solution under a given executor. We introduce SURE, a framework for learning and leveraging relative strategy utility. In this framework, high-level strategies are separated from their detailed reasoning. Based on the pairwise preferences constructed from strategy-conditioned rollouts and teacher-generated contrasts, a Strategy Reward Model is learned to estimate relative strategy utility. During reinforcement learning, the frozen reward model reads only the extracted strategy, whose score is combined with the correctness and format rewards in a sequence-level GRPO objective. Compared with outcome-and-format GRPO baselines, experiments show that SURE improves average pass@1 by 1.87%, 2.64%, and 2.93% across three policy backbones. Our method also achieves competitive or better accuracy than stronger reward baselines while requiring substantially lower GRPO-stage compute.

Large language models now achieve high final-answer accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, but accuracy alone does not capture reasoning flexibility. We introduce a strategy-level evaluation framework instantiated on 80 AMC 10/12 and AIME problems with 217 AoPS-derived reference strategy families. Model outputs are annotated for strategy identity, validity, and correctness using dual-AI coding with human adjudication. Across four frontier models, we find a pronounced decoupling between answer accuracy and strategy diversity. Under a single-solution prompt, all models achieve high accuracy (95%-100%), but under a multiple-strategy prompt they recover substantially fewer strategies than the human reference set. Gemini, DeepSeek, GPT, and Claude generate 184, 152, 151, and 110 distinct valid strategies, respectively, with the largest gaps in Geometry and Number Theory. The models collectively produce 50 benchmark-novel valid strategies, indicating both incomplete coverage of human strategies and some capacity for alternative reasoning. A repeated-run robustness check on 20 problems shows diminishing gains in discovered strategies, with the strongest model recovering only 39 of 55 AoPS-reference strategies (71%) after three runs. These findings position strategy diversity as a complementary dimension for evaluating mathematical reasoning beyond answer correctness.

Test-time compute can improve mathematical reasoning, but can short-budget runs predict how mathematical reasoning scales with additional compute? We introduce a Discovery--Execution (DE) framework that predicts the aggregate held-out scaling curves through a convolution of strategy discovery and conditional execution. From independent short-budget attempts and oracle-sketch-conditioned runs, the framework estimates cumulative success along held-out reasoning trajectories under alternate compute allocations. We evaluate four models on 35 fresh Olympiad problems and non-geometry problems from IMO-ProofBench Advanced. Under the DE framework, near-saturated execution predicts geometric scaling, as observed for the GPT models. For Claude Opus 4.8, incorporating measured execution substantially improves held-out forecasts over geometric extrapolation across one- and two-arm allocations. As a secondary application, regularized DE (R-DE) decisions to continue or restart yield lower average regret than the best model-specific retrospective policy. Together, these results show that measuring conditional execution provides information about longer reasoning that short-budget success rates do not always capture.