# Rectify Evaluation Preference: Improving LLMs' Critique on Math Reasoning via Perplexity-aware Reinforcement Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10303 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.10303/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 12 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Mathematical reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/mathematical-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [The Entropy Mechanism of Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22617/) (2025)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [Teaching Language Models to Critique via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03492/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Credit Cards, Confusion, Computation, and Consequences: What Can We Uncover About Language Model Reasoning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26952/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

To improve Multi-step Mathematical Reasoning (MsMR) of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to obtain scalable supervision from the corpus by automatically critiquing mistakes in the reasoning process of MsMR and rendering a final verdict of the problem-solution. Most existing methods rely on crafting high-quality supervised fine-tuning demonstrations for critiquing capability enhancement and pay little attention to delving into the underlying reason for the poor critiquing performance of LLMs. In this paper, we orthogonally quantify and investigate the potential reason -- imbalanced evaluation preference, and conduct a statistical preference analysis. Motivated by the analysis of the reason, a novel perplexity-aware reinforcement learning algorithm is proposed to rectify the evaluation preference, elevating the critiquing capability. Specifically, to probe into LLMs' critiquing characteristics, a One-to-many Problem-Solution (OPS) benchmark is meticulously constructed to quantify the behavior difference of LLMs when evaluating the problem solutions generated by itself and others. Then, to investigate the behavior difference in depth, we conduct a statistical preference analysis oriented on perplexity and find an intriguing phenomenon -- ``LLMs incline to judge solutions with lower perplexity as correct'', which is dubbed as textitimbalanced evaluation preference. To rectify this preference, we regard perplexity as the baton in the algorithm of Group Relative Policy Optimization, supporting the LLMs to explore trajectories that judge lower perplexity as wrong and higher perplexity as correct. Extensive experimental results on our built OPS and existing available critic benchmarks demonstrate the validity of our method.