Calculator tool calling for improving mathematical reasoning on the Countdown task is studied, suggesting that tool integration reduces arithmetic and verification errors, while RL increases the probability of correct reasoning traces.
Abstract
Current large language models (LLMs) increasingly benefit from external tool integration, especially for tasks requiring reliable computation and verification. Motivated by this, we study calculator tool calling for improving mathematical reasoning on the Countdown task. We first analyze reasoning failures and find that calculation errors account for a substantial portion of incorrect responses. We then construct supervised fine-tuning datasets to teach the model useful tool-use patterns and how to interpret returned outputs. Building on this tool-formatted policy, we apply several on-policy reinforcement learning methods, including RLOO, RLOO++, GRPO, and DAPO, using automatically verifiable final-answer rewards. To enable a more reliable evaluation, we construct a fresh 1,024-problem held-out Countdown benchmark with no exact overlap with the training data. Our results show that calculator tool integration consistently improves both SFT and RL baselines, yielding roughly 10 percentage-point gains across pass@k. Among the RL methods, Tool-DAPO achieves the strongest performance, improving pass@1 from 35.8% for Tool-SFT to 66.0%. Further analysis shows that RL encourages more effective tool use even when only final-answer rewards are provided. These findings suggest that tool integration reduces arithmetic and verification errors, while RL increases the probability of correct reasoning traces.
Recent methods using Reinforcement Learning (RL) have improved Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) by training large language models to learn end-to-end policies for multi-step tool usage, enabling them to solve complex tasks more effectively. Despite these advances, existing methods often suffer from overthinking at both...
Yichen Xiao, Siyu Gong, Linan Yue· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
A reinforcement learning framework that jointly trains tool creation and tool use inside a single policy, with three separate reward axes that catch schema, code, and outcome failures independently, so each failure mode contributes its own gradient.
Zhi Rui Tam, Chieh-Yen Lin, Yun-Nung Chen et al.· 2 citations
SINKFLEX-RL, a modular training system for RL in dual-control tool-use environments that combines a Gymnasium-compatible environment wrapper, a VERL-style rollout dataflow, group-relative policy optimization without a separate value model, and a sink-aware FlexAttention path designed to preserve model-specific sink sca...
Zelei Cheng, Amritansh Mishra, Sambit Sahu et al.· 0 citations
This model interleaves reasoning, tool calls, and returns in one left-to-right generation, trained by a supervised warm-up and then outcome-level reinforcement learning against a programmatic reward read directly off the gold call chain, which leaves no learned critic and no judge in the training loop.
Armin Dariani, Sifan Wu, Bang Liu et al.· 0 citations
This work uses classic instruction tuning, supervised fine-tuning without reasoning traces, on the RLM to improve RLM performance in both verifiable and hard-to-verify domains, including coding and text summarization, while preserving RLM capabilities across other domains.
Yuanning Feng, Niels Mündler-Sasahara, Mark Vero et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This work introduces StructReward, a compute-efficient framework that provides dense reinforcement signals through structured step-level reward alignment and substantially reduces the computational overhead of multimodal reinforcement learning.
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.