Higher Reasoning Effort Improves Reference Verifiability and Changes Reasoning Summaries in GPT-5.5

Inference-time scaling for LLM reasoning has focused on three axes: chain depth, sample breadth, and learned step-scorers (PRMs). We introduce a fourth axis, granularity of external verbal supervision, via Verbal Process Supervision (VPS), a training-free framework that uses structured natural-language critique from a stronger supervisor to guide an iterative generate-critique-refine loop up to a round budget R. Across GPQA Diamond, AIME 2025, and LiveCodeBench V6 (covering both closed and open models), VPS yields three key results. First, on GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.4 (High) | GPT-5.4 (Low) reaches 94.9% at R=4, surpassing the 94.1% state of the art without gradient updates. Second, on AIME 2025, VPS enables strong weak-actor rescue, boosting scores from 11.7-26.7% to 63.3-90.0% (up to +63.3 points). Third, at matched compute, VPS outperforms Reflexion by +8.5 to +12.1 points and Self-Consistency@5 by +5.0 pp (GPQA) and +8.3 pp (LiveCodeBench), isolating critique granularity as the key driver. Performance scales with the supervisor-actor capability gap (Pearson r=0.90) and degrades when errors are not linguistically expressible (e.g., code synthesis), motivating hybrid verbal-executable methods. These results establish critique granularity as a new axis of inference-time scaling.

Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large language models do so is not well characterized. Methods. We prompted 26 language models from eight developers (2023 to 2026) to supply a missing reference for each of 69 biomedical passages across ten domains. References were classified as verifiable (real paper with a resolving identifier), partial matches (real paper without a resolving identifier), fabricated (no matching indexed paper), or declined (the model refused to supply a reference). A reference was considered correct in every evaluated bibliographic field only when it was verifiable and its journal, year, and listed authors matched those of the cited paper. Results. Fabrication ranged from 10.2% (Claude Opus 4.8, which declined 52.1% of prompts) to 98.4% (Ministral 3B, which produced no verifiable reference). Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 produced similar proportions of verifiable references (77.6% and 76.6%) but named authors correctly in 78.7% and 28.7% of author-evaluable verifiable references, respectively, and were correct in every evaluated field in 54.6% and 19.9% of responses. GPT-5.5 was correct in every field in 48.1%. Across all models, 55.4% of responses were fabricated and 14.9% were correct in every field. Among the five tested models first released in 2026, the corresponding proportions were 35.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Conclusions. Fabrication remained common, and no model was correct in every evaluated bibliographic field in more than 54.6% of responses. Models that identify real papers may still misstate their metadata, so references produced with model assistance require verification before use.

The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem. We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering diverse datasets and state-of-the-art LLMs, combining controlled human assessment, bias-mitigated LLM-as-Judge protocols, factuality verification against external knowledge, and corpus-level linguistic analysis. Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human references continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness, whereas LLM outputs are preferred mainly for surface-level coherence and fluency. Factuality verification indicates that human references remain more reliable, particularly for claims involving reasoning or synthesis, and linguistic analysis uncovers a pattern of stylistic homogeneity across different models. These observations suggest that current LLMs have raised the floor of summarization quality, but the ceiling of their performance remains below human capabilities.