Organizations: Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · This work was done during his internship at Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. · National University of Singapore · Chinese University of Hong Kong · University of Oxford · Tsinghua University
Large language models can fail in critic interaction not only by answering incorrectly, but also by abandoning an initially correct scientific solution after user criticism. This is especially risky in scientific reasoning, where user criticism can turn a valid answer into an incorrect one. We frame critic interaction as an inter-turn correctness-transition problem rather than a final-answer accuracy problem, and identify three challenges: transition awareness, decoupling useful correction from harmful sycophancy, and scalable rollout. We propose ReCrit, a transition-aware reinforcement learning framework that decomposes Initial-to-Critic behavior into four quadrants: Correction, Sycophancy, Robustness, and Boundary. ReCrit rewards correction and robustness, penalizes sycophancy, and treats persistent errors as weak boundary signals. To make interaction training practical, ReCrit further uses dynamic asynchronous rollout with tail-adaptive completion to reduce rollout waiting. On three scientific reasoning benchmarks, ChemBench, TRQA, and EarthSE, ReCrit improves average Critic accuracy from 38.15 to 51.49 on Qwen3.5-4B and from 45.40 to 55.59 on Qwen3.5-9B. Ablations show that final-answer rewards provide little interaction-level gain, while transition-aware rewards and quadrant weighting produce more distinguishable training signals and larger net Critic-stage improvement. The code is available at https://github.com/black-yt/ReCrit .
Large language model-based agents make mistakes, yet critique can often guide the same model toward correct behavior. However, when critique is removed, the model may fail again on the same query, indicating that it has not internalized the critique's guidance into its underlying capability. Meanwhile, a frozen critic cannot improve its feedback quality over time, limiting the potential for iterative self-improvement. To address this, we propose learning to internalize self-critique with reinforcement learning(ICRL), a novel framework that jointly trains a solver and a critic from a shared backbone to convert critique-induced success into unassisted solver ability. The critic is rewarded based on the solver's subsequent performance gain, incentivizing actionable feedback. To address the distribution shift between critique-conditioned and critique-free behavior, ICRL introduces a distribution-calibration re-weighting ratio that selectively transfers critique-guided improvements compatible with the solver's own prompt distribution. Additionally, a role-wise group advantage estimation stabilizes joint optimization across the two roles. Together, these mechanisms ensure that the solver learns to improve itself without external critique, rather than becoming dependent on critique-conditioned behavior. We evaluate ICRL on diverse benchmarks spanning agentic and mathematical reasoning tasks, using Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B as backbones. Results show consistent improvements, with average gains of 6.4 points over GRPO on agentic tasks, and 7.0 points on mathematical reasoning. Notably, the learned 8B critic is comparable to 32B critics while using substantially fewer tokens. The code is available at https://github.com/brick-pid/ICRL.
While Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in mathematical reasoning, their application in complex scientific domains-such as biology, chemistry, and physics remains largely unexplored. Scientific problems demand not only logical rigor but also factual consistency and the precise usage of domain-specific tools, areas where current models often suffer from hallucinations and lack of verification. In this paper, we first construct SCIPRM70K, a large-scale dataset featuring Chain-of-Tool trajectories that explicitly interleave reasoning with the execution of scientific tools. Building upon this, we train an efficient reward model called Sci-PRM to provide fine-grained supervision on tool selection, execution accuracy, and result interpretation at each step in one inference. Experiments demonstrate that Sci-PRM significantly enhances foundation models in two key aspects: (1) it enables effective test-time scaling via Best-of-N selection; and (2) when integrated into Reinforcement Learning, it serves as a dense reward signal that mitigates the critical issue of advantage disappearance, allowing the model to break through existing performance ceilings.
As large language models (LLMs) show increasing promise on research-level physics reasoning tasks and agentic AI becomes more common, a practical question emerges: How does the interaction between researchers and agents affect the results? We study this using SCALAR (Structured Critic--Actor Loop for AI Reasoning), an Actor--Critic--Judge pipeline applied to quantum field theory and string theory problems. The Actor proposes solutions, the Critic provides iterative feedback, and an independent Judge evaluates the transcript against reference solutions. We vary the Actor persona, the Critic feedback strategy, and the Actor model family and scale. Multi-turn dialogue improves over single-shot attempts throughout, but both the mechanism of improvement and the value of different prompting choices depend strongly on the Actor--Critic pairing. Increasing the scale within one model family (e.g. from the 8B-parameter DeepSeek-R1 variant to DeepSeek-R1 70B) improves some easier-problem behavior, but does not remove the hardest bottleneck we observe. Critic feedback strategy matters most clearly in the asymmetric Actor--Critic setting (e.g., a lightweight Haiku Actor guided by a stronger Sonnet Critic), where constructive feedback improves mean-score outcomes. In same-family Actor--Critic settings, strategy effects are weaker: lenient feedback is sometimes favored, while strict and adversarial feedback are not beneficial. Taken together, SCALAR provides a controlled testbed for evaluating which interaction structures help or hinder AI-driven scientific discovery.
Vasilis Niarchos, Constantinos Papageorgakis, Alexander G. Stapleton +1