HFEPX · Eval paper review
Yuanfu Wang, Zhixuan Liu, Xiangtian Li, Chaochao Lu +1 more
Published
Feb 12, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
40/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Domain Experts
Signals refreshed
Mar 23, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers. This dependency incurs significant data-collection costs, risks embedding human cognitive biases, and confines the reinforcement learning stage to objectively assessable domains like mathematics and coding, leaving a wide range of unverifiable tasks beyond its scope. To overcome these limitations, we introduce NRT (Native Reasoning Training), a novel framework that cultivates complex reasoning by having the model generate its own reasoning traces using only standard question-answer pairs, thereby obviating the need for expert-written demonstrations. NRT reframes the training problem by treating the reasoning process as a latent variable. It employs a unified training objective that models reasoning as an optimization problem, intrinsically rewarding paths that increase the model's likelihood of producing the ground-truth answer. This unified perspective allows us to analyze intrinsic failure modes of prior methods, such as policy collapse, and systematically design more robust reward aggregation functions, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the model learns to think in ways that resolve its own uncertainty. Empirical evaluation on Llama and Mistral model families demonstrates that NRT achieves state-of-the-art performance among verifier-free methods, significantly outperforming standard SFT baselines and prior verifier-free RL methods. Our approach yields particularly strong performance gains in complex reasoning domains and exhibits high robustness to policy collapse, offering a general, scalable path toward building more powerful and broadly applicable reasoning systems.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Demonstrations
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"To overcome these limitations, we introduce NRT (Native Reasoning Training), a novel framework that cultivates complex reasoning by having the model generate its own reasoning traces using only standard question-answer pairs, thereby obviating the need for expert-written demonstrations."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers."
Domain Experts
Helpful for staffing comparability.
"To overcome these limitations, we introduce NRT (Native Reasoning Training), a novel framework that cultivates complex reasoning by having the model generate its own reasoning traces using only standard question-answer pairs, thereby obviating the need for expert-written demonstrations."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
The prevailing paradigm for training large reasoning models--combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)--is fundamentally constrained by its reliance on high-quality, human-annotated reasoning data and external verifiers.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Demonstrations
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.
