arXiv:2509.19800v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: There are two primary approaches to solving Markov decision problems (MDPs): dynamic programming based on the Bellman equation and linear programming (LP). Dynamic programming methods are the most widely used and form the foundation of both classical and modern reinforcement learning (RL). By contrast, LP-based methods have been less commonly employed, although they have recently gained attention in contexts such as offline RL. The relative underuse of the LP-based methods stems from the fact that it leads to an inequality-constrained optimization problem, which is generally more challenging to solve effectively compared with Bellman-equation-based methods. The purpose of this paper is to establish a theoretical foundation for solving LP-based MDPs in a more effective and practical manner. Our key idea is to leverage the log-barrier function, widely used in inequality-constrained optimization, to transform the LP formulation of the MDP into an unconstrained optimization problem. This reformulation enables approximate solutions to be obtained easily via gradient descent. While the method may appear simple, to the best of our knowledge, a thorough theoretical interpretation of this approach has not yet been developed. This paper aims to bridge this gap.

arXiv:2510.09312v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current Chain-of-Thought (CoT) verification methods predict reasoning correctness based on outputs (black-box) or activations (gray-box), but offer limited insight into why a computation fails. We introduce a white-box method: Circuit-based Reasoning Verification (CRV). We hypothesize that attribution graphs of correct CoT steps, viewed as execution traces of the model's latent reasoning circuits, possess distinct structural fingerprints from those of incorrect steps. By training a classifier on structural features of these graphs, we show that these traces contain a powerful signal of reasoning errors. Our white-box approach yields novel scientific insights unattainable by other methods. (1) We demonstrate that structural signatures of error are highly predictive, establishing the viability of verifying reasoning directly via its computational graph. (2) We find these signatures to be highly domain-specific, revealing that failures in different reasoning tasks manifest as distinct computational patterns. (3) We provide evidence that these signatures are not merely correlational; by using our analysis to guide targeted interventions on individual transcoder features, we successfully correct the model's faulty reasoning. Our work shows that, by scrutinizing a model's computational process, we can move from simple error detection to a deeper, causal understanding of LLM reasoning.