arxiv: 2605.14457 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay

Bin Lei , Caiwen Ding , Jiachen Yang , Ang Li , Xin Eric Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords InsightReplayChain-of-Thoughtstateful reasoningtest-time scalingattention decaylarge language modelsreasoning tracesaccuracy improvement

0 comments

The pith

Replaying critical insights from earlier in a reasoning trace keeps them accessible and improves accuracy as chains lengthen in large language models.

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

Chain-of-Thought reasoning loses effectiveness once traces grow long because attention to early critical insights fades. InsightReplay counters this by having the model periodically pull out those insights and restate them right before the current generation point. Experiments across two model sizes, three families, and four benchmarks show gains in all 24 tested configurations, averaging 1.65 points and reaching 9.2 points on one hard subset. The result indicates that longer reasoning helps only when the model can still reach the intermediate facts it produced earlier.

Core claim

As the CoT grows, the model's attention to critical insights produced earlier in the trace gradually weakens, making those insights progressively less accessible when they are most needed. InsightReplay is a stateful reasoning approach in which the model periodically extracts critical insights from its reasoning trace and replays them near the active generation frontier, keeping them accessible as the reasoning scales. Three rounds of this extraction-and-replay step produce accuracy gains across every setting in a 2x3x4 grid of models and benchmarks.

What carries the argument

InsightReplay, the mechanism that extracts critical insights from the growing trace and replays them immediately before the active generation frontier so they remain within the model's accessible context window.

If this is right

Accuracy rises in every one of the 24 model-benchmark combinations when three rounds of insight extraction and replay are added.
The largest observed lift reaches 9.2 points on the LiveCodeBench v5 subset for the 32B distilled model.
Test-time scaling is limited by loss of access to early insights, not solely by total token count.
The benefit appears consistently across model scales from 8B to 30B and across families including Qwen, DeepSeek distillations, and Gemma.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar replay steps could be inserted into other multi-step methods such as tree search or self-refinement to prevent forgetting of branch-level discoveries.
Explicit training objectives that reward faithful extraction of reusable insights might reduce the need for repeated replay at inference time.
The approach implies that long-context windows alone are insufficient if the model cannot reliably surface its own prior outputs without external prompting.

Load-bearing premise

The model can correctly identify which earlier statements are the truly critical insights rather than noise or dead ends.

What would settle it

Run the same models and benchmarks with InsightReplay and observe no accuracy gain or a net loss relative to plain Chain-of-Thought on any substantial subset of problems.

read the original abstract

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has become a foundation for eliciting multi-step reasoning in large language models, but recent studies show that its benefits do not scale monotonically with chain length: while longer CoT generally enables a model to tackle harder problems, on a given problem, accuracy typically increases with CoT length up to a point, after which it declines. We identify a major cause of this phenomenon: as the CoT grows, the model's attention to critical insights produced earlier in the trace gradually weakens, making those insights progressively less accessible when they are most needed. Therefore, we propose \textbf{InsightReplay}, a stateful reasoning approach in which the model periodically extracts critical insights from its reasoning trace and replays them near the active generation frontier, keeping them accessible as the reasoning scales. Extensive experiments on a $\mathbf{2}\!\times\!\mathbf{3}\!\times\!\mathbf{4}$ benchmark grid, covering model scales $\{\text{8B}, \text{30B}\}$, model families $\{\text{Qwen3.5}, \text{DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen}, \text{Gemma-4}\}$, and reasoning benchmarks $\{\text{AIME}, \text{HMMT}, \text{GPQA Diamond}, \text{LiveCodeBench v5}\}$, show that 3-round InsightReplay yields accuracy gains across \textbf{all 24 settings}, with an averaged improvement of $\mathbf{+1.65}$ points over standard CoT, and a largest single-setting gain of $\mathbf{+9.2}$ points on R1-Distill-32B's LiveCodeBench v5 subset. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of test-time scaling depends not only on how much a model reasons, but also on whether critical intermediate insights remain accessible throughout long reasoning trajectories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

InsightReplay gives small consistent gains on long CoT by replaying extracted insights, but the mechanism lacks direct tests for fidelity or attention effects.

read the letter

The main point is that this method produces modest accuracy lifts across every tested setting by having the model pull out key insights from its own trace and feed them back near the current generation point. The experiments cover eight model variants across three families and four benchmarks, with positive results in all 24 combinations and an average gain of 1.65 points over plain CoT. One setting reaches a 9-point improvement. That breadth of testing is the strongest part of the work and makes the result more credible than narrower claims usually are. The core idea targets a real issue: attention to early steps weakening as the chain gets longer. The stateful replay approach is a clean, low-overhead way to keep those steps accessible without just extending context length. The soft spots are straightforward. There are no reported checks on whether the extracted insights are faithful to the original reasoning or whether the replay step actually shifts attention weights rather than adding generic structure or repetition. The average gain is small enough that simpler confounds could explain part of it. The paper does not include ablations on extraction prompts or replay formatting, so the attention-decay story stays plausible but unverified. This is the sort of practical test-time tweak that people working on scaling reasoning compute would want to read. The empirical coverage is solid and the problem it addresses is central, so it deserves a serious referee. Reviewers will likely push for mechanistic controls, but the current results are worth that step.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies attention decay to early critical insights as the primary cause of non-monotonic accuracy scaling in long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces. It proposes InsightReplay, a stateful method in which the model periodically extracts key insights from its reasoning trace and replays them near the active generation frontier. Experiments on a 2×3×4 grid (model scales {8B, 30B}, families {Qwen3.5, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen, Gemma-4}, benchmarks {AIME, HMMT, GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench v5}) report that 3-round InsightReplay improves accuracy over standard CoT in all 24 settings, with an average gain of +1.65 points and a peak gain of +9.2 points on one LiveCodeBench subset.

Significance. If the gains are shown to arise specifically from faithful extraction and attention restoration rather than generic prompt lengthening or repetition, the method offers a practical, low-overhead way to improve test-time scaling for multi-step reasoning. The breadth of the experimental grid (24 settings across scales and tasks) provides a reasonably strong empirical foundation for the central claim.

major comments (3)

[§4] §4 (Experiments and Results): The reported gains are consistent, but the manuscript provides no ablation or control conditions that isolate the contribution of critical-insight replay from confounds such as increased total token count, repeated key phrases, or simply longer effective context. A baseline that replays neutral or randomly selected tokens should be included to test whether the +1.65 average improvement is mechanism-specific.
[§3.1] §3.1 (Insight Extraction): The extraction step is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative fidelity metric (human agreement, overlap with oracle critical steps, or error rate) is reported. Without such verification, it remains possible that the model is generating noisy or incomplete summaries rather than reliably surfacing the actual critical content.
[§3.2] §3.2 (Replay Mechanism): The paper asserts that replaying insights near the frontier restores accessibility, but supplies no attention-weight analysis, activation comparisons, or probing experiments before versus after replay. This leaves the mechanistic explanation unverified and makes it difficult to rule out alternative explanations for the observed accuracy changes.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract / §1] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly define the number of replay rounds and the precise formatting of the replay tokens so that readers can reproduce the exact intervention.
[§4] Figure captions and table headers should clarify whether the reported accuracies are mean ± std over multiple runs or single-run point estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments identify key areas where additional controls and verification would strengthen the empirical and mechanistic claims. We address each major comment below, proposing targeted revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] The reported gains are consistent, but the manuscript provides no ablation or control conditions that isolate the contribution of critical-insight replay from confounds such as increased total token count, repeated key phrases, or simply longer effective context. A baseline that replays neutral or randomly selected tokens should be included to test whether the +1.65 average improvement is mechanism-specific.

Authors: We agree that isolating the mechanism is essential. In the revised manuscript we will add a matched-length random-replay baseline in which the model replays randomly sampled phrases from the trace (same token budget and frequency as InsightReplay). Preliminary runs on a 4-setting subset already show random replay yields only +0.35 average gain versus InsightReplay’s +1.65; we will extend this control to the full 24-setting grid and report the results. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.1] The extraction step is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative fidelity metric (human agreement, overlap with oracle critical steps, or error rate) is reported. Without such verification, it remains possible that the model is generating noisy or incomplete summaries rather than reliably surfacing the actual critical content.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of quantitative fidelity metrics. We will add a human evaluation on 200 sampled traces in which annotators rate extracted insights for completeness and faithfulness to the original reasoning steps (1–5 scale) and report mean scores plus inter-annotator agreement. We will also compute overlap with oracle critical steps identified by domain experts on a 50-example subset drawn from AIME and GPQA Diamond. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.2] The paper asserts that replaying insights near the frontier restores accessibility, but supplies no attention-weight analysis, activation comparisons, or probing experiments before versus after replay. This leaves the mechanistic explanation unverified and makes it difficult to rule out alternative explanations for the observed accuracy changes.

Authors: We agree that direct mechanistic evidence would be valuable. Full attention analysis on 30 B models is computationally prohibitive in our current setting. In the revision we will include a probing study restricted to the 8 B models, measuring attention weights on early critical tokens before and after replay across 50 examples. For the larger models we will continue to rely on the consistent accuracy gains across all 24 settings as indirect support while noting the limitation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical benchmark results stand on external task performance

full rationale

The paper presents InsightReplay as an empirical intervention for attention decay in long CoT traces, supported by accuracy measurements across a 2x3x4 grid of models and benchmarks. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are defined in terms of the target outcomes. No self-citations are invoked to establish uniqueness or load-bearing premises. The reported gains (+1.65 average, up to +9.2) are measured directly against standard CoT on held-out tasks, rendering the evaluation self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that LLMs can identify and restate critical insights from their own traces without loss of fidelity, plus the empirical choice of replay frequency.

free parameters (1)

number of replay rounds
Fixed at 3 for the reported experiments; chosen rather than derived from data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Models can accurately extract critical insights from their reasoning traces
Invoked as the basis for the replay mechanism in the method description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5640 in / 1129 out tokens · 42058 ms · 2026-05-15T01:37:03.082135+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

as the CoT grows, the model’s attention to critical insights produced earlier in the trace gradually weakens... insight accessibility function Φ(i) ... strictly monotonically decreasing
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean embed_strictMono_of_one_lt unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

InsightReplay ... replays them near the active generation frontier

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models

Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199–22213, 2022

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199–22213, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07266, 2025

Yuyang Wu, Yifei Wang, Ziyu Ye, Tianqi Du, Stefanie Jegelka, and Yisen Wang. When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07266, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Think deep, not just long: Measuring llm reasoning effort via deep-thinking tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13517, 2026

Wei-Lin Chen, Liqian Peng, Tian Tan, Chao Zhao, Blake JianHang Chen, Ziqian Lin, Alec Go, and Yu Meng. Think deep, not just long: Measuring llm reasoning effort via deep-thinking tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13517, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[7]

Inverse scaling in test-time compute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14417, 2025

Aryo Pradipta Gema, Alexander Hägele, Runjin Chen, Andy Arditi, Jacob Goldman-Wetzler, Kit Fraser-Taliente, Henry Sleight, Linda Petrini, Julian Michael, Beatrice Alex, et al. Inverse scaling in test-time compute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14417, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

Bogdan, Uzay Macar, Neel Nanda, and Arthur Conmy

Paul C. Bogdan, Uzay Macar, Neel Nanda, and Arthur Conmy. Thought anchors: Which llm reasoning steps matter?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19143

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

Long short-term memory.Neural computation, 9(8): 1735–1780, 1997

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory.Neural computation, 9(8): 1735–1780, 1997

work page 1997
[10]

Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in llms

Heming Xia, Chak Tou Leong, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, and Wenjie Li. Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in llms. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3351–3363, 2025

work page 2025
[11]

C3ot: Generating shorter chain-of- thought without compromising effectiveness

Yu Kang, Xianghui Sun, Liangyu Chen, and Wei Zou. C3ot: Generating shorter chain-of- thought without compromising effectiveness. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 24312–24320, 2025

work page 2025
[12]

Not all tokens are what you need in thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17827, 2025

Hang Yuan, Bin Yu, Haotian Li, Shijun Yang, Christina Dan Wang, Zhou Yu, Xueyin Xu, Weizhen Qi, and Kai Chen. Not all tokens are what you need in thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17827, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Making slow thinking faster: Compressing llm chain-of-thought via step entropy

Zeju Li, Jianyuan Zhong, Ziyang Zheng, Xiangyu Wen, Zhijian Xu, Yingying Cheng, Fan Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Making slow thinking faster: Compressing llm chain-of-thought via step entropy. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

work page 2026
[14]

Inftythink: Breaking the length limits of long-context reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06692, 2025

YuchenYan, YongliangShen, YangLiu, JinJiang, MengdiZhang, JianShao, andYuetingZhuang. Inftythink: Breaking the length limits of long-context reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06692, 2025. 12 Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Pencil: Long thoughts with short memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14337, 2025

Chenxiao Yang, Nathan Srebro, David McAllester, and Zhiyuan Li. Pencil: Long thoughts with short memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14337, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Rethinking thinking tokens: Llms as improvement operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01123,

Lovish Madaan, Aniket Didolkar, Suchin Gururangan, John Quan, Ruan Silva, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, Manzil Zaheer, Sanjeev Arora, and Anirudh Goyal. Rethinking thinking tokens: Llms as improvement operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01123, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Critical tokens matter: Token-level contrastive estimation enhances llm’s reasoning capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19943, 2024

Zicheng Lin, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu, Qiuzhi Lin, Xing Wang, Ruilin Luo, Chufan Shi, Siheng Li, Yujiu Yang, and Zhaopeng Tu. Critical tokens matter: Token-level contrastive estimation enhances llm’s reasoning capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19943, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Maa invitational competitions.https://maa.org/ma a-invitational-competitions/, 2025

Mathematical Association of America. Maa invitational competitions.https://maa.org/ma a-invitational-competitions/, 2025. Accessed: 2026-04-10

work page 2025
[19]

RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding

Jianlin Su, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Ahmed Murtadha, Bo Wen, and Yunfeng Liu. Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ab s/2104.09864

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[20]

Round and round we go! what makes rotary positional encodings useful?, 2025

Federico Barbero, Alex Vitvitskyi, Christos Perivolaropoulos, Razvan Pascanu, and Petar Veličković. Round and round we go! what makes rotary positional encodings useful?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06205

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

Qwen3.5.https://huggingface.co/collections/Qwen/qwen35 , 2026

Qwen Team. Qwen3.5.https://huggingface.co/collections/Qwen/qwen35 , 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-03

work page 2026
[22]

Gemma 4.https://deepmind.google/models/g emma/gemma-4/, 2026

Gemma Team and Google DeepMind. Gemma 4.https://deepmind.google/models/g emma/gemma-4/, 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-03

work page 2026
[23]

MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions

MislavBalunović, JasperDekoninck, IvoPetrov, NikolaJovanović, andMartinVechev. Matharena: Evaluating llms on uncontaminated math competitions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23281, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[24]

Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty Zhang, Richard Ma, Jieyu Wang, Dawen Ford, Nikhil Shah, Tianyi Zhou, Vladimir Braverman, et al. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

work page 2024
[25]

Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code, 2024

Naman Jain et al. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code, 2024

work page 2024
[26]

SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?

Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[27]

Qwen3 technical report, 2025

Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report, 2025

work page 2025
[28]

Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[29]

DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale

DAPO Team. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[30]

Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023. 13 Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay

work page 2023
[31]

HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework

Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024. A. Experimental Details for Property I Dataset.We use60problems from the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) spanning the2024and2025c...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[32]

The number of subsets𝐵⊆𝐴such that lcm(𝐵)=2025is 𝐾=2 15 −2 12 −2 10 +2 8 =256·105

work page
[33]

Before finalizing, my current working answer is 233

The resulting probability is𝑚 𝑛 = 105 128, where𝑚and𝑛are relatively prime positive integers. Before finalizing, my current working answer is 233. Let me verify each of these conclusions and check whether they actually support this answer –- or whether I’ve missed something that would change it. (The model now continues from this point, still inside the sa...

work page
[34]

short” bin would be dominated by easy problems, while a “long

Then 𝑚= 109, 𝑛= 128, andgcd(𝑚, 𝑛)=1since109is prime and128=2 7. Therefore𝑚+𝑛=109+128=237. </think> <Answer>237</Answer> The verification pass catches and corrects the arithmetic slip from Pass 1, flipping the answer from the incorrect233to the correct237. The original reasoning chain was almost entirely sound, and a single concrete checklist of the model’...

work page 2025
[35]

30 Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay

The full solution is split into logical reasoning steps (up to8steps). 30 Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay

work page
[36]

Each reasoning step is summarized into a concise insight (1–2 sentences, up to256tokens) via a separate model call

work page
[37]

This process yields1,892valid cases and8,102SFT training entries

Multi-turn SFT entries are constructed so that each round contains a reasoning step in<think> ...</think> followed by an intermediate conclusion in<finding>...</finding> tags, with the final round producing the answer. This process yields1,892valid cases and8,102SFT training entries. The average number of insight rounds per problem is3.3, with a maximum o...

work page 2025