We introduce ThinkTwice, a simple two-phase framework that jointly optimizes LLMs to solve reasoning problems and refine the answers, based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). In each pair of training steps, ThinkTwice first optimizes the model on solving reasoning problems, then optimizes it on refining its own solutions to the same problems, using the same binary correctness reward in both phases without correctness signals or critique annotations. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and two model families including Qwen3-4B and Olmo3-7B, ThinkTwice substantially improves both reasoning and refinement performance over competitive online policy optimization baselines. Specifically, on Qwen3-4B, ThinkTwice outperforms GRPO on AIME by 5 percentage points before refinement and by 11.5 points after one self-refinement step, measured by pass@4. Analysis of the training dynamics of ThinkTwice reveals an implicit rectify-then-fortify curriculum: refinement predominantly corrects errors early in training and naturally shifts toward preserving already-correct solutions as the model improves, yielding a more rectified reward signal. Our work establishes joint training of reasoning and self-refinement as a principled and effective methodology for RLVR.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (A) Prompt-only reflection can reduce top frontier LLM’s performance on AIME24, indicating brittleness. (B) ThinkTwice compared with existing method families. (C) ThinkTwice addresses these gaps by sequentially training a shared model backbone—first solving, then reflecting—yielding significant gains (+5 points reasoning, +11 points refinement) on AIME with Qwen3-4B.
Figure 2: ThinkTwice at a glance.
Method
AIME
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Average
Qwen3-4B
Base Model
29.18
64.87
88.47
39.61
57.90
56.01
GRPO
39.06
75.36
91.86
41.03
63.80
62.22
DrGRPO
35.46
77.65
91.83
42.75
66.51
62.84
DAPO
42.54
80.68
93.55
38.38
67.50
64.53
ThinkTwice
44.11
79.59
93.60
42.94
67.60
65.57
Table 1: Reasoning performance (pass@4, ↑ ) across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results per dataset within each model.
Method
AIME
AMC
MATH500
Minerva
OlympiadBench
Average
Qwen3-4B
Base Model
45.25
78.10
92.82
40.81
63.52
64.10
Reflexion †
38.47
73.17
91.48
40.87
60.89
60.98
Self-Refine †
50.37
82.40
93.86
41.19
66.33
66.83
GRPO
48.91
81.86
93.78
42.90
69.67
67.42
DrGRPO
46.98
82.66
94.46
44.84
71.75
68.14
Table 2: Self-refinement performance (pass@4, ↑ ) across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results per dataset within each model. † denotes training-free methods.
Figure 3: Cross-model refinement evaluation (average pass@4, ↑ ). Rows denote the backbone reasoning model; columns denote the refinement model.
Figure 4: Training dynamics of refinement across checkpoints. The vertical dashed lines mark the best checkpoints. Left (a): transition metrics on the training set across checkpoints. Right (b): formatting and length metrics across checkpoints during training. Top: boxed-answer and final-answer marker rates; bottom: average response length for self-refinement on correct-only base solutions.
Figure 5: Training-time cost and dynamics of ThinkTwice compared with GRPO. * denoted best checkpoint step of models. (a) Mean reward. (b) Response length. (c) Wall-clock time per update. (d) Accumulated training time. (e) Within-checkpoint macro average benchmark accuracy. Solid orange denotes ThinkTwice base updates, solid blue denotes GRPO, and dashed orange denotes ThinkTwice refinement updates when applicable.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Family
Representative methods
RL?
Extra supervision?
Extra verifier / teacher / critique
Core characteristic
One-pass RLVR
GRPO, DeepSeek-R1, DAPO, Dr. GRPO
Yes
No
No
Trains first-pass reasoning only; no learned revision policy.
Usually relies on process labels, critique data, synthetic correction traces, or stronger verifiers.
RL-based refinement
SCoRe, S 2 R, RISE, PAG, Self-Verify, Critique-GRPO
Yes
Usually yes
Usually explicit
Closest prior line, but typically adds explicit verification or critique objectives.
ThinkTwice
Two-phase RLVR with a shared policy
Yes
No
No
Same correctness reward in solve and revise phases; revision conditions only on the model’s prior answer plus a generic review instruction.
Appendix
Table 3: A compact comparison of ThinkTwice with related work. We compare whether methods use reinforcement learning, require supervision beyond final-answer correctness, and rely on an additional verifier, teacher, or explicit critique channel. Entries summarize the dominant tendency of each family.
Category
Hyperparameter
GRPO Training
Learning rate
1×10−6
PPO clip ratio
0.2
Max response length
3000
Train batch size
32
PPO mini batch size
8
Appendix
Table 4: Key hyperparameters for ThinkTwice training.
Figure 6: Reasoning pass@ k curves across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3-4B (top) and OLMo3-7B (bottom).
Figure 7: Self-refinement pass@ k curves across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3-4B (top) and OLMo3-7B (bottom).
Case
Sample
Checkpoints
Why it matters
A
481
100, 240
Same problem shows both phases of the story: early refinement discovers the missing telescoping structure; later refinement gives a much shorter version of the now-correct base proof.
B
497
110, 250
refinement completes a stalled geometric derivation early, then later preserves the method while converting a long decimal-heavy trace into a shorter exact solution.
C
194
30, 220
Early refinement repairs a concrete derivative mistake; later refinement turns a wandering but correct proof into a short direct argument.
D
425
100, 220
Geometry case: early refinement recomputes faulty vector algebra; later refinement keeps the invariant but removes most of the symbolic overhead.
Appendix
Table 5: Case-study map for the detailed qualitative appendix.
Checkpoint
Run
Base output
refinement output
Step 100
ThinkTwice
wrong ; 1222 words; last boxed value 85
correct ; 686 words; 8n2+4n+1
Pure GRPO
wrong ; 1308 words; no final boxed general form
correct ; 892 words; 8n2+4n+1
Step 240
ThinkTwice
correct ; 1222 words; 8n2+4n+1
correct ; 358 words; 8n2+4n+1
Pure GRPO
wrong ; 1243 words; no final boxed general form
correct ; 1067 words; 8n2+4n+1
Appendix
Table 6: Case A summary. The same problem exhibits both early correction and late-stage compression.
Checkpoint
Run
Base output
refinement output
Step 110
ThinkTwice
wrong ; 1280 words; no final boxed answer
correct ; 633 words; 27
Pure GRPO
wrong ; 1284 words; no final boxed answer
wrong ; 970 words; no final boxed answer
Step 250
ThinkTwice
correct ; 1303 words; 3.5
correct ; 591 words; 27
Pure GRPO
correct ; 1209 words; 27
correct ; 884 words; 27
Appendix
Table 7: Case B summary. Early refinement completes the coordinate-shoelace derivation; late refinement keeps the method but presents it more cleanly.
Checkpoint
Run
Base output
refinement output
Step 30
ThinkTwice
wrong ; 1204 words; no final boxed answer
correct ; 719 words; 41
Pure GRPO
correct ; 1236 words; 41
correct ; 1181 words; 41
Step 220
ThinkTwice
correct ; 1373 words; 41
correct ; 374 words; 41
Pure GRPO
correct ; 906 words; 41
correct ; 755 words; 41
Appendix
Table 8: Case C summary. Early refinement fixes a concrete derivative mistake; late refinement turns a wandering proof into a short direct argument.
Checkpoint
Run
Base output
refinement output
Step 100
ThinkTwice
wrong ; 1138 words; no final boxed answer
correct ; 795 words; 3R2
Pure GRPO
correct ; 711 words; 3R2
correct ; 1046 words; 3R2
Step 220
ThinkTwice
correct ; 746 words; 3R2
correct ; 410 words; 3R2
Pure GRPO
correct ; 1259 words; 3R2
correct ; 993 words; 3R2
Appendix
Table 9: Case D summary. A backup geometry example showing early recomputation and late compression.
Can a language model improve reasoning by learning from its own imperfect responses, without rewards or teacher-provided solutions? We present Self-evolving Post-Training (SePT), a simple method that alternates temperature-controlled self-generation with next-token likelihood training. Each round uses the updated model to generate new training responses, with one response per prompt by default and no correctness filtering. Across six mathematical benchmarks, SePT improves a temperature-selected no-training baseline by 11.4 and 6.7 AVG points on Qwen2.5-Math-7B and Qwen2.5-7B, respectively, where AVG averages Pass@1, Pass@8 and Pass@32 across benchmarks. We analyze how sampling temperature shapes the learning signal and investigate the value of the resulting responses. Responses from a SePT-trained model improve a student initialized from the original weights, while their reasoning prefixes help an unchanged model complete solutions, even when matched in length to prefixes from a colder initial model. Comparing next-token predictions at identical contexts also reveals changes in token rankings that decoding-temperature adjustment cannot reproduce. Further evaluations across nine starting models, general reasoning and code generation examine broader applicability. Together, these results show that reward-free self-training can improve both a model's predictions and the supervision it provides. Our code is available at https://github.com/ElementQi/SePT.
Mengqi Li, Lei Zhao, Anthony Man-Cho So +2
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by increasing test-time compute. However, even after extensive RLVR training, such models still tend to generate unnecessary and low-quality steps in their chain-of-thought (CoT), leading to inefficient overthinking and lower answer quality. We show that when the initial direction or quality of the CoT is suboptimal, the model often fails to reach the correct answer, even after generating several times more tokens than when the initial CoT is well-initialized. To this end, we introduce Reinforcement Learning with Re-solving (Re2), in which LLMs learn to flexibly abandon unproductive reasoning paths and restart the solution process when necessary, rather than always committing to a final answer. Re2 applies pure reinforcement learning without any preliminary supervised fine-tuning, successfully amplifying the rare redo behavior in vanilla models from only 0.5% to over 30%. This leads to substantial performance gains over standard RLVR under the same training compute budget, and also demonstrates notable improvements in test-time performance as the number of samples increases.
Pinzheng Wang, Shuli Xu, Juntao Li +4
School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University · Department of Foundation Model, 2012 Labs, Huawei · College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University
Large language models show strong reasoning ability, but their internal reasoning process can remain unstable in complex multi-step settings, where early hidden-state errors may propagate to incorrect predictions. We propose ReLAR, a reinforcement-guided latent refinement framework that iteratively updates hidden representations before decoding. ReLAR maintains a compact latent reasoning state and uses learned depth and action controllers to adaptively determine both the number and direction of refinement steps. The controllers are trained with a policy gradient objective based on step-wise likelihood improvement, enabling efficient input-dependent reasoning without explicit chain-of-thought generation. Experiments on medical, mathematical, multi-hop reasoning, and open-ended generation benchmarks show that ReLAR improves accuracy, generation quality, and reasoning stability with substantially lower inference overhead than explicit reasoning baselines.