# Inverse Reasoning Models for Efficient Post-Training and Verification from Answer-Only Data

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18878 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18878/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)
- Knowledge distillation / [On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/distill/on-policy-and-self-distillation-for-llms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (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)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01825/) (2023)
- [Stream of Search (SoS): Learning to Search in Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03683/) (2024)
- [Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11860/) (2023)
- [Training Chain-of-Thought via Latent-Variable Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02179/) (2023)
- [RAVR: Reference-Answer-guided Variational Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.25206/) (2025)
- [Coupled Variational Reinforcement Learning for Language Model General Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.12576/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Post-training reasoning LLMs often requires making a tradeoff between costly supervision and compute inefficiency: supervised finetuning typically requires reasoning traces, which is data inefficient since in many applications one only has prompt-answer tuples and lacks the groundtruth chain-of-thought (CoT) sequence. On the other hand, reinforcement learning (with verifiable rewards, for example) can operate without CoT data but it is much more compute-inefficient since it requires multiple autoregressive completions per optimization step, none of which are guaranteed to give a non-zero policy gradient. In this work we explore a middleground, a self-distillation technique that uses answer-only data, treating CoT as latent variables. This relies on training a partner ``inverse reasoning LLM" that generates the original's reasoning traces conditioned on the answer. The inverse model is trained once and reused across incoming batches of answer-only data, with all generation happening offline and up front, making the approach particularly suited to continual post-training. Using Qwen3-0.6B on the Countdown and GSM8K tasks, we show that after GRPO training has saturated, a single offline distillation round from the inverse model roughly doubles pass@1 on hard prompts and, on Countdown, outperforms rejection-sampling self-distillation on every hard-tail metric at every mix ratio (with smaller gains on GSM8K); rejection sampling by construction has no signal on problems the model never solves on its own. Continued GRPO on the fresh data retains an edge at hard pass@1 but trails distillation at pass@8 and pass@32 while regenerating rollouts at every step. As an added bonus we see that the inverse model has a second application as an accurate verifier of correctness. When used for best-of-n selection at test time, it raises selection accuracy on Countdown from 0.753 (majority voting) to 0.969.