# Euston: Training Away Mathematical Sycophancy Without Losing the Mathematics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.23205 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.23205/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 7 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [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)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [DoRA: Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09353/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reasoning language models are trained to produce solutions, not to refuse them, and this bias persists when the problem they are handed is false. Asked to prove a corrupted theorem, a strong model will typically comply and produce a confident derivation of something untrue. We present Euston, an 8B mathematical claim-verification model trained to resist exactly this. Training data were generated with GraphSynth, a probabilistic factor-graph generator that couples attribute-level diversity to decode-time structural masking and span-synchronized verification, yielding 3{,}026 matched true/corrupted statement pairs (6,052 statements) drawn from arXiv papers spanning 2010--2025. We fine-tuned DeepSeek-R1-8B with GRPO under a rule-based, zero-API reward for 189 steps on four H100 GPUs. On a balanced 200-true/200-false held-out split, balanced accuracy rises from 29.50% to 63.75% and the discrimination gap---the difference between the rate of calling false statements false and the rate of calling true statements false moves from -0.5% (z=-0.1) to +27.5% (z=+6.0). Critically, the gain is not purchased with general mathematical ability: AIME 2026 accuracy under official semantics is 65.00% against a 69.17% base, a difference of -4.17% that is not statistically significant, whereas an earlier run of the same recipe on a smaller GraphSynth corpus collapsed to 40.00%. Median response length also falls from 19,217 to 18,296 tokens and the truncation rate from 25.8% to 8.3%, so the improvement does not come from thinking longer. We report the result together with the confounds that bound its interpretation, principally the all-false composition of the official evaluation sets and the low precision implied at realistic error prevalence.