De Jiang, Zhengyang Zhang, Kehong Yuan +1cs.LG cs.AI
On-policy distillation (OPD) supervises student-visited trajectories, yet divergence-based rules cannot determine whether an erroneous prefix remains correctable. We formulate this decision as counterfactual recoverability and replay each error state through budget-matched teacher-continuation and rollback branches. Based on their relative success, states are categorized as recoverable, irreversible-but-avoidable, or ambiguous, and these labels guide whether training retains, rolls back, or conventionally supervises the corresponding trajectory. On AIME branch diagnostics, the mean continuation-minus-rollback effect is 0.185 for recoverable states and -1.000 for irreversible-but-avoidable states, demonstrating opposite intervention preferences. A branch-derived recoverability proxy achieves an AUC of 1.000, substantially outperforming divergence alone at 0.392. Across frozen evaluations, recoverability-aware control achieves the strongest recorded performance, reaching 0.578 success on held-out AIME2025 compared with 0.517 for the best baseline. It also improves AIME2024-2025 average@32 from 0.2656 to 0.3125 and GPQA-Diamond average@32 from 0.2702 to 0.3070. Component ablations further show that retaining teacher-correctable prefixes provides the largest individual contribution. These findings establish recoverability as an outcome-grounded decision variable for selective supervision in OPD.
Evaluating the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of large language models remains a significant challenge. Although current models achieve strong results on existing multi-hop question answering datasets, such performance often masks two critical vulnerabilities: (1) reliance on internal parametric knowledge rather than adherence to the provided context, and (2) exploitation of dataset shortcuts, such as single-document cues or type-matching, that diminish the need for genuine evidence aggregation across multiple documents. We introduce CRiT-QA (Counterfactual Reasoning with Traps), a dataset explicitly designed to address both limitations. To neutralize reliance on memorized knowledge and enforce strict context dependency, CRiT-QA transforms factual reasoning chains with counterfactual entities. Furthermore, it injects multi-anchor distractor chains, plausible but incorrect reasoning paths that diverge at different hops. These traps require models to follow the entire reasoning process rather than exploiting shallow heuristics. Our experiments show that LLMs exhibit substantial performance degradation on CRiT-QA compared to standard datasets, exposing their vulnerability to counterfactual conditions and distractor traps. CRiT-QA thus serves as a rigorous diagnostic tool for evaluating genuine multi-hop reasoning and provides a foundation for developing more reliable, evidence-grounded LLMs.
Natural language understanding often depends on meanings that are implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring pragmatic reasoning. Despite strong performance on math and logical reasoning, large language models (LLMs) still struggle with making pragmatic inferences, often choosing literal interpretations. To improve LLM pragmatic reasoning, we introduce PragReST, a self-supervised framework that constructs pragmatic QA data, generates counterfactual reasoning traces, and trains models to internalize them through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, without human-labeled training data or distillation from a stronger teacher. Across four pragmatic benchmarks (PragMega, Ludwig, MetoQA, and AltPrag), PragReST improves over backbone models, task-specific pragmatic tuning baselines, and non-counterfactual variants of the same pipeline. On accuracy-based benchmarks, PragReST improves over the instruct backbone by 5.37 and 5.50% (absolute) for Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B, respectively. Our error analysis and ablations underscore the importance of counterfactual reasoning: PragReST primarily reduces errors caused by failures to contrast observed utterances with plausible alternatives, and removing counterfactual reasoning substantially reduces performance. Moreover, our training preserves out-of-domain performance on general-knowledge and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
Table reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs), particularly in tasks that require multi-step inference over long and structured tables. Existing approaches predominantly rely on single-direction reasoning, which limits their ability to explore alternative hypotheses across tasks. In this work, we propose CRAFT, a unified Counterfactual Reasoning Framework that reformulates Tabular question answering and fact verification into a general bidirectional verification process. Our method explicitly constructs both declarative statements and their counterfactual variants. Evidence is then extracted from reasoning along both the original and counterfactual paths, and integrated via a weighted mechanism to arrive at the final answer. Experimental results show that our approach consistently surpasses representative baselines on table reasoning datasets such as WikiTQ and TabFact, achieving especially large improvements on complex question answering. Our framework also significantly mitigates performance gaps between different backbone LLMs. This indicates that counterfactual reasoning effectively overcomes the limitations of single-direction inference, guiding LLMs toward more discerning reasoning and establishing a more principled paradigm for structured reasoning tasks. Our code will be made publicly available upon acceptance.