Unleashing the Reasoning Potential of LLMs by Critique Fine-Tuning on One Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critique Fine-Tuning (CFT) has recently emerged as a promising paradigm for unlocking the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we introduce one-shot CFT, a highly compute-efficient approach that leverages critique data generated from a single math problem. Remarkably, this method yields significant gains in reasoning accuracy, surpassing one-shot RLVR (Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward) while requiring 15 to 20 times less compute. Given one math problem, we first prompt a set of diverse small models to produce candidate solutions, then use frontier models such as GPT-4.1 to generate high-quality critiques of these responses. We fine-tune Qwen and Llama family models ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters with CFT. With just 5 GPU hours, our models achieve up to a 16 percent absolute improvement in average accuracy across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks (for example, Qwen2.5-Math-7B improves from 26 percent to 42 percent). Furthermore, ablation studies reveal the robustness of one-shot CFT across different prompt problems. Our findings suggest an extremely compute-efficient approach to unleash the reasoning potential of LLMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".