Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MixReasoning claims that uncertainty-gated, intra-response switching between concise and detailed reasoning can shorten chain-of-thought traces by up to roughly half while preserving or improving accuracy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A reasoning model can cut token usage by roughly a third to a half without losing accuracy if it switches to brief output on low-uncertainty steps and expands only at high-uncertainty forks.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Plausible token-saving method, but the claimed causal role of entropy-based triggering is untested because the key ablation (random windows, no-expansion concise) is missing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.06052 v2 pith:MPNVQBWF submitted 2025-10-07 cs.AI cs.CL

MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think

Haiquan Lu , Gongfan Fang , Xinyin Ma , Qi Li , Xinchao Wang This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords reasoning modelschain-of-thoughtadaptive computationtoken-level uncertaintyLoRA adaptersinference efficiencymathematical reasoninglong-to-short compression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Long chains of thought spend most of their tokens on routine arithmetic and filler, with only a few high-uncertainty steps deciding the answer. MixReasoning is an inference-time framework that gives one model both a long-reasoning mode and a concise mode, using a lightweight low-rank adapter trained on short solutions to produce the concise behavior. During decoding it watches the model's next-token uncertainty: when uncertainty spikes, it rolls back a short window and re-decodes that span in detailed mode; once uncertainty drops, it anneals back to concise mode. The paper reports token reductions of roughly 12–47 percent across GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME24 while matching or slightly improving accuracy in most tested settings. The practical payoff, if the claim holds, is cheaper and more readable reasoning traces without giving up the accuracy that long chains are supposed to buy.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that reasoning depth can be allocated inside a single response rather than set once per problem. A LoRA adapter distilled from short GSM8K solutions acts as a 'non-thinking' mode; scaling its strength down when local next-token entropy crosses an upper threshold restores detailed thinking, and a lower hysteresis threshold returns generation to concision. The paper reports that this uncertainty-gated windowed regeneration improves the accuracy–efficiency frontier relative to uniform long-to-short compression and problem-level routing, with the largest observed drop from 750 to 401 tokens at higher accuracy on one model/benchmark pair, and consistent

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a lightweight LoRA adapter (a low-rank parameter update that changes model behavior without modifying the base weights) trained to produce concise solutions, combined with an entropy-triggered hysteresis controller. At each decoding step the framework computes normalized next-token entropy H_t; if H_t crosses an upper threshold tau_up, it opens uncertainty window [t-B, t+F], rolls back to t-B, and re-decodes the window with low adapter strength (detailed mode). It stays in detailed mode until H_t falls below a lower threshold tau_down, then anneals back to high adapter strength (concise mode). This hysteresis prevents rapid oscillation and makes the balance of modes

Load-bearing premise

MixReasoning's central bet is that a spike in the model's uncertainty about which token comes next marks the exact spot where more detailed reasoning is needed; the authors note this entropy controller is not learned end-to-end and can be sensitive to calibration and non-local dependencies, so if that signal is wrong the method becomes a concise model with arbitrary expansions.

What would settle it

Run MixReasoning at a fixed token budget against a control that expands windows chosen at random (or at fixed positions) and re-decodes them in detailed mode with the same window size and budget. If the random-window control matches MixReasoning's accuracy, then the entropy trigger is not the mechanism preserving accuracy; if it falls short, the uncertainty signal is doing real work.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single served model can span both thinking and non-thinking behaviors without loading a second model or retraining the base model, making the trade-off available at inference time.
  • Uniform compression methods that shorten every step equally are not the right tool: at the same token budget, windowed expansion around uncertain forks preserves more accuracy.
  • Adapters placed only on MLP layers should allow full KV-cache reuse across mode switches, so end-to-end inference cost can approach that of a single fixed-mode model.
  • Response length becomes a runtime dial: an uncertainty threshold and window size deterministically control the mix of concise and detailed tokens, allowing a service to set a token budget per request.
  • Because long chains can themselves hurt accuracy through verbosity, shortening them can occasionally improve answers, not merely preserve them.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if high-entropy tokens truly mark decision forks, the same entropy-gated windowing should transfer to other long-output tasks such as code generation, proof drafting, and planning, where the paper does not test it.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's entropy trigger is heuristic; an imitation-learning or RL policy trained to choose switch points might squeeze more accuracy from the same token budget, a direction the appendix names as future work.
  • Editorial inference: the MLP-vs-attention finding suggests interpreting reasoning-chain control as a property of feed-forward 'associative' layers, which could guide model-surgery approaches to reasoning length beyond LoRA.
  • Editorial inference: the reported savings are token counts; a deployment study measuring wall-clock latency, including prefill and rollback overhead, would be needed to know how the 12–47 percent token reduction translates into user-visible speedup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes MixReasoning, an inference-time method that alternates between concise and detailed reasoning within a single chain-of-thought. A LoRA adapter is fine-tuned on short GSM8K rationales to elicit concise ('non-thinking') outputs. At decoding time, the normalized next-token entropy H_t (Eq. 2) is monitored; when H_t ≥ τ_up, the model rolls back to t−B and re-decodes the window [t−B, t+F] in detailed mode (low LoRA strength), then anneals back to concise mode when H_t ≤ τ_down (Eq. 3). Experiments on GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME24 with QwQ-32B-Preview, Qwen3-14B, and Qwen3-8B report token reductions of roughly 25–47% at roughly matched or higher accuracy compared with the original CoT and with five long-to-short baselines. The paper also reports a layerwise LoRA ablation (Figure 5) arguing that MLP-only adapters compress as well as all-layer adapters.

Significance. If the central claim holds, MixReasoning would be a practical single-model method for adaptive reasoning that is both cheaper and more readable than uniform long CoT, with a controllable accuracy–efficiency trade-off. The authors evaluate across three model families and three benchmarks, compare with five relevant baselines, and provide qualitative examples. However, the unique mechanism—entropy-gated window placement—is not isolated, and the quantitative support lacks error bars and matched-budget comparisons. These are major gaps for the advertised 'thinking where it matters' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Eqs. 2–3), Table 1, Figs. 4/6/7] The central mechanism is not isolated. The paper never ablates the entropy-gated trigger against (i) a fixed concise mode with no expansions or (ii) a rollback/regeneration controller with random trigger positions matched in number and window length. Without these controls, the accuracy preservation cannot be attributed to uncertainty-based placement; it may simply come from the concise LoRA plus occasional local re-decoding at any location. The qualitative examples are cherry-picked and cannot establish causality. Appendix A.1 itself concedes the controller 'does not learn end-to-end where within a CoT to be long vs. short and can be sensitive to calibration and non-local dependencies.' This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, and the missing ablation should be added.
  2. [Table 1 and §4.2] All results are reported as means over 5 runs with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several accuracy differences are small relative to the number of problems (e.g., AIME24 has 30 problems; QwQ-32B 0.4483 vs 0.4333, Qwen3-8B 0.6433 vs 0.6333; Qwen3-8B GSM8K 0.9562 vs 0.9583 is a decrease). The abstract's claim of 'without compromising accuracy' and the 'in most cases improves accuracy' statement are not statistically supported. Please report per-run variance, consistency across seeds, or significance tests, particularly for the small AIME set.
  3. [§4.2, Table 1, Figure 3] The 'Pareto frontier' and 'exceeds accuracy at matched or lower token budgets' claims are not rigorously established. Table 1 compares against baselines at their default configurations rather than at matched token budgets; Figure 3 provides sweeps, but only for GSM8K and only against two baselines (Prompt and CoT-Valve), without error bars. The assertion of 'strictly better trade-offs' overstates the evidence. Provide matched-budget comparisons with confidence intervals on all three benchmarks, or qualify the claim.
  4. [§4.2 Finding 2, Appendix A.2] The main results depend on hyperparameters (τ↑, τ↓, B, F, α_low, α_high), but the values used for Table 1 are not reported, and sensitivity is shown only for GSM8K (Figure 3) without error bars. Since Appendix A.1 states that the controller 'can be sensitive to calibration,' the reader cannot assess whether the gains are robust or an artifact of per-benchmark tuning. Please report the exact settings and a systematic sensitivity/robustness analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Figure 5] The claim that MLP-only LoRA gives 'token reduction at matched accuracy' is not supported because Figure 5a shows only token counts, not accuracy. Report accuracy for the layerwise ablation or qualify the claim.
  2. [Eq. (3)] Using α_low and α_high as the state labels for S_t is confusing because α is described as a continuous adapter strength. Clarify that these are two discrete mode labels with fixed strengths.
  3. [Abstract, §4] Efficiency is measured only by token count. Since the method involves rollback and re-decoding, wall-clock latency and throughput should be reported or the efficiency claim should be scoped to token count.
  4. [Footnote, p.1] Typo: 'Correspoding Author' should be 'Corresponding Author'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central accuracy/efficiency claim is empirical and benchmarked, not reduced to fitted values or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

MixReasoning's central claim is empirical: Table 1 measures accuracy and token counts against the original CoT and five compression baselines on GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME. The concise LoRA adapter is trained on the GSM8K train split, but evaluation is on the held-out GSM8K test split and on other benchmarks, so the reported accuracy is not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Equations (2) and (3) define an entropy-triggered hysteresis policy, but the paper does not derive accuracy preservation from these equations; it reports measured outcomes. The self-citation to CoT-Valve (Ma et al., 2025b) for the LoRA SFT recipe is methodological lineage, not a load-bearing uniqueness argument, and the paper provides its own objective (Eq. 1) and implementation details. The main weakness is experimental: the paper does not ablate entropy-gated window placement against random windows or a fixed concise no-expansion baseline, so the causal role of token-level uncertainty in preserving accuracy is not established. That is a correctness/experimental gap, and the authors' own limitation statement in Appendix A.1 concedes this, but it is not circularity by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input or to an unverified self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. The LoRA adapter is a trained artifact, not a postulated mechanism. The central claim rests primarily on the empirical assumption about entropy-based triggering and on unreported runtime controls.

free parameters (3)
  • uncertainty thresholds τ↑ and τ↓ = not reported
    Trigger and hysteresis thresholds control when to switch into and out of thinking mode. They are swept per benchmark to generate the Pareto frontier in Figure 3, but the values used for Table 1 are not given.
  • window size B (backward) and F (forward) = not reported
    Window size determines how many tokens are rolled back and re-decoded in thinking mode. It directly controls the token budget and is varied in experiments without reporting exact values.
  • LoRA adapter strengths α_low and α_high = not reported
    The strengths set thinking vs. concise mode during decoding. The paper only reports a training-time α=8 in Appendix A.2, not the runtime switching values.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Token-level entropy identifies pivotal reasoning steps where detailed thinking is needed.
    Section 3.2 uses the normalized entropy H_t from Eq. 2 to trigger windowed regeneration, relying on Wang et al. (2025b). No ablation in this paper validates that these entropy peaks are the right places to expand.
  • domain assumption Scaling LoRA adapter strength interpolates reliably between concise and detailed reasoning without degrading base-model capability.
    Section 3.1 assumes that the LoRA update acts as a task vector and that on-the-fly strength scaling preserves the base model's abilities, citing CoT-Valve and Schulman & Lab (2025).
  • domain assumption GSM8K short ground-truth rationales are sufficient supervision to learn a concise reasoning mode that transfers to MATH-500 and AIME.
    Section 4.4 trains the concise LoRA only on the GSM8K train split, then evaluates on all three benchmarks. The cross-benchmark transfer is plausible but not deeply analyzed.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPNVQBWF

@misc{pith2026251006052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPNVQBWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.06052}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Reasoning models enhance performance by tackling problems in a step-by-step manner, decomposing them into sub-problems and exploring long chains of thought before producing an answer. However, applying extended reasoning to every step introduces substantial redundancy, as sub-problems vary widely in difficulty and complexity: a small number of pivotal steps are genuinely challenging and decisive for the final answer, while many others only involve straightforward revisions or simple computations. Therefore, a natural idea is to endow reasoning models with the ability to adaptively respond to this variation, rather than treating all steps with the same level of elaboration. To this end, we propose MixReasoning, a framework that dynamically adjusts the depth of reasoning within a single response. The resulting chain of thought then becomes a mixture of detailed reasoning on difficult steps and concise inference on simpler ones. Experiments on GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME show that MixReasoning shortens reasoning length and substantially improves efficiency without compromising accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06052 by Gongfan Fang, Haiquan Lu, Qi Li, Xinchao Wang, Xinyin Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The comparison among Long-to-short compression, Hybrid reasoning, and MixReason [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MixReasoning use a single base model served together with a concise LoRA; during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MixReasoning and Long-to-short reasoning(prompting ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison: Long CoT produces a verbose trace with coherence fillers and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Layerwise LoRA ablation for reasoning-chain compression. Fine-tuning only MLP layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional qualitative comparison using Qwen3-8B model.In MixReasoning responses, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparison using Qwen3-14B model.In MixReasoning responses, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mix-Quant: Quantized Prefilling, Precise Decoding for Agentic LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Mix-Quant quantizes prefilling to NVFP4 and keeps BF16 for decoding in agentic LLMs, achieving up to 3x prefilling speedup while largely preserving task performance on long-context and agentic benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697,

    Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [3]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [5]

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14913,

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14913,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [7]

    Token- budget-aware llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18547,

    Tingxu Han, Zhenting Wang, Chunrong Fang, Shiyu Zhao, Shiqing Ma, and Zhenyu Chen. Token- budget-aware llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18547,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [9]

    Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [11]

    Reward-guided speculative decoding for efficient llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19324,

    Baohao Liao, Yuhui Xu, Hanze Dong, Junnan Li, Christof Monz, Silvio Savarese, Doyen Sahoo, and Caiming Xiong. Reward-guided speculative decoding for efficient llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19324,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [13]

    Reasoning models can be effective without thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09858, 2025a

    Wenjie Ma, Jingxuan He, Charlie Snell, Tyler Griggs, Sewon Min, and Matei Zaharia. Reasoning models can be effective without thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09858, 2025a. Xinyin Ma, Guangnian Wan, Runpeng Yu, Gongfan Fang, and Xinchao Wang. Cot-valve: Length- compressible chain-of-thought tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09601, 2025b. Kevin Meng, David...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [14]

    Specrea- son: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07891,

    Rui Pan, Yinwei Dai, Zhihao Zhang, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Jia, and Ravi Netravali. Specrea- son: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07891,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [15]

    https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/lora/

    doi: 10.64434/tml.20250929. https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/lora/. Yi Sun, Han Wang, Jiaqiang Li, Jiacheng Liu, Xiangyu Li, Hao Wen, Yizhen Yuan, Huiwen Zheng, Yan Liang, Yuanchun Li, et al. An empirical study of llm reasoning ability under strict output length constraint.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14350,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [16]

    Concisehint: Boosting efficient reasoning via continuous concise hints during generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18810,

    Siao Tang, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, and Xinchao Wang. Concisehint: Boosting efficient reasoning via continuous concise hints during generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18810,

    arXiv

  11. [17]

    Aime problem set 1983-2024,

    Hemish Veeraboina. Aime problem set 1983-2024,

    1983

  12. [18]

    Chenlong Wang, Yuanning Feng, Dongping Chen, Zhaoyang Chu, Ranjay Krishna, and Tianyi Zhou

    URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/ datasets/hemishveeraboina/aime-problem-set-1983-2024. Chenlong Wang, Yuanning Feng, Dongping Chen, Zhaoyang Chu, Ranjay Krishna, and Tianyi Zhou. Wait, we don’t need to” wait”! removing thinking tokens improves reasoning efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08343, 2025a. Shenzhi Wang, Le Yu, Chang Gao, Chujie Zheng, Shixuan Liu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1983

  13. [19]

    Swift: On-the-fly self-speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06916,

    Heming Xia, Yongqi Li, Jun Zhang, Cunxiao Du, and Wenjie Li. Swift: On-the-fly self-speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06916,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [20]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025a

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025a. 11 Preprint. Chenxu Yang, Qingyi Si, Yongjie Duan, Zheliang Zhu, Chenyu Zhu, Qiaowei Li, Zheng Lin, Li Cao, and Weiping Wang. Dynamic early exit in reasoning models.arX...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [21]

    For the recent state-of-the-art open-source models Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B (Alibaba, 2025), we set the maximum tokens to 16384 for all three benchmarks

    to 4192 on the GSM8K dataset, and 8192 on the MATH-500 and AIME24 datasets at inference time. For the recent state-of-the-art open-source models Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B (Alibaba, 2025), we set the maximum tokens to 16384 for all three benchmarks. Training SettingWe use LoRA (Hu et al.,

    2025

  16. [2020]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [2021]

    Thinkless: Llm learns when to think.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13379,

    Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, and Xinchao Wang. Thinkless: Llm learns when to think.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13379,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [2022]

    Editing models with task arithmetic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04089,

    Gabriel Ilharco, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Mitchell Wortsman, Suchin Gururangan, Ludwig Schmidt, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Ali Farhadi. Editing models with task arithmetic.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04089,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [2023]

    O1-pruner: Length-harmonizing fine-tuning for o1-like reasoning pruning

    Haotian Luo, Li Shen, Haiying He, Yibo Wang, Shiwei Liu, Wei Li, Naiqiang Tan, Xiaochun Cao, and Dacheng Tao. O1-pruner: Length-harmonizing fine-tuning for o1-like reasoning pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12570,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [2024]

    Scalable best-of-n selection for large language models via self-certainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18581,

    Zhewei Kang, Xuandong Zhao, and Dawn Song. Scalable best-of-n selection for large language models via self-certainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18581,

    arXiv

  21. [2025]

    Zigeng Chen, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, Ruonan Yu, and Xinchao Wang

    Accessed: 2025-05-10. Zigeng Chen, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, Ruonan Yu, and Xinchao Wang. Verithinker: Learning to verify makes reasoning model efficient.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17941,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.