Thought-Level Beam Search for Reasoning

Hongyin Luo; Jiawei Zhao; Lijie Yang; Ravi Netravali; Tri Dao

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Thought-Level Beam Search for Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gambit reframes test-time reasoning as a fixed-budget, thought-level beam search that recycles compute from weak traces onto promising prefixes, and it claims strict dominance over both parallel sampling and pruning-only scaling on the…

desk verdict Thought-level beam search is a real contribution, but the paper's central attribution claim is undercut by a score-weighting confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08020 v2 pith:KAGSCWG7 submitted 2026-08-08 cs.AI

Lijie Yang , Hongyin Luo , Jiawei Zhao , Tri Dao , Ravi Netravali This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords test-timecomputescalingreasoningmodelsbeamsearchself-consistencyinferenceefficiencyallocationhidden-statescoringprefixKV-cachesharing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that test-time scaling for large reasoning models is best framed as a budgeted allocation of compute over partially completed reasoning traces, and that the allocation should be an active, fixed-capacity beam search over thoughts. Gambit prunes the lowest-scoring active traces in periodic tournaments and immediately branches from the highest-scoring prefixes, so the pool of concurrent traces stays full and GPU resources stay busy. It uses the same off-the-shelf hidden-state scorer as the STEP pruning baseline, isolating the search topology as the source of any difference. The paper reports up to +6.7% absolute accuracy on HMMT-24 and +3.3% on AIME-25 over pruning baselines, more than twice the trace throughput, and up to 68.5% lower total token consumption than standard parallel sampling. A sympathetic reader would care because this treats saved compute as something to reinvest into better thinking, not just as something to avoid spending.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is thought-level beam search with zero-sum tournaments. Traces are segmented into thoughts at double-newline boundaries; every $\Delta=200$ tokens, active traces are ranked by the running average score $\bar{s}_i=\frac{1}{n}\sum_j f_\theta(h_{i,j})$ of a lightweight two-layer MLP reading last-layer hidden states, the bottom $K=16$ traces are pruned, and the top $K$ are branched into new children via prefix-cache reuse of the parent's cached attention state. A warmup threshold of $w=12{,}000$ tokens keeps immature traces out of the branching pool, and a decoupled scheduler/tree view prevents memory-pressure evictions from collapsing the search onto a single greedy branch. Completed traces contribute to a score-weighted majority vote.

What would settle it

On AIME-25 at N=256, run Gambit with the same hyperparameters but a permutation-randomized scorer, shuffling the computed scores across active traces at each tournament round; if this randomized version matches the reported accuracy and token count, then score-guided allocation is not what produces the gains, and the paper's central mechanism would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that subtractive pruning underperforms not because prefix scores are weak, but because it never spends the compute it frees: killing a low-quality trace without replacing it shrinks the voting pool and leaves hardware idle. Gambit pairs every prune with a branch, removing the K lowest-scoring traces and spawning K children from the K highest-scoring prefixes, with children inheriting the parent's cached prefix. This keeps the number of active traces at exactly capacity C and, the paper argues, mechanically shifts the ensemble distribution toward correct answers. The discovery is that the topology of test-time compute allocation—recycle-and-branch rather than sample-and-discard—is what produces the reported accuracy and token-efficiency gains across three model families and five benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, once a reasoning trace passes roughly 12,000 tokens of warmup, a cheap hidden-state scorer ranks partial traces by their chance of ending in the correct answer well enough that pruning the bottom and branching the top actually concentrates compute on better futures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under a fixed GPU budget, independent parallel sampling is not the best use of test-time compute; a search that reallocates tokens among partial traces can raise accuracy without raising the token bill.
Pruning-only early-exit strategies leave a predictable accuracy ceiling because they shrink the voting pool; branching refills it, so gains from a good prefix-scorer are amplified rather than wasted.
Token savings up to 68.5% with roughly comparable wall-clock latency mean the practical cost of scaling reasoning can fall sharply on long-horizon math and science problems.
Because Gambit uses the same scorer as STEP, the accuracy gap isolates the value of the search topology itself rather than a better reward signal.
The method is scorer-agnostic, so future improvements in process reward models or hidden-state probes should directly translate into larger accuracy gains under the same tournament structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the magnitude of Gambit's gains should track the reliability of the prefix scorer; the paper's own Figure 9 shows pairwise ranking accuracy that starts near random and rises only toward 0.6-0.65, so datasets where correct and incorrect reasoning share long plausible prefixes should be where the method shines, and datasets where divergence happens before the 12K warmup should b
Editorial inference: a natural stress test is to feed the tournament a deliberately bad scorer, for example permuting the scores across active traces at each round; if Gambit's accuracy and token savings persist, the branching mechanics alone, rather than the fidelity of the guidance signal, would be doing the work.
Editorial inference: because Gambit is scorer-agnostic, stronger process reward models or learned value functions could be plugged in directly, likely converting better signals into larger accuracy gains than pruning-only pipelines could obtain.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about arXiv:2608.08020 (Gambit). First, it is a genuine algorithmic contribution: framing test-time scaling as constrained compute allocation and executing zero-sum prune-and-branch with ghost traces and decoupled scheduler/tree views is new, and the system work is solid. Second, the central claim—that the gains come from active reallocation rather than a better scorer—is not supported by the experiments as run.

The paper does a lot right. The formal setup is clear, the evaluation spans three model families and five benchmarks, the appendix includes a useful hyperparameter ablation and a revealing runtime trace showing a branched child correcting its parent's arithmetic slip. The token-efficiency numbers are consistent across models, with Gambit often cutting tokens by 40–68% relative to self-consistency. I have no reason to doubt the reported token savings or the throughput gains on trace completion.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Most important: Gambit aggregates final answers by score-weighted majority vote, while the baselines use unweighted self-consistency. The paper asserts that any variance is 'strictly attributable to the underlying search topology,' but no ablation separates the effect of score weighting from the effect of reallocation. Given that the reported accuracy differences are small (e.g., +3.3% on AIME-25 is roughly one question on a 30-question set), the weighting confound could plausibly account for a sizable portion of the lift. That's the main thing I would want the authors to address—by adding a Gambit variant with unweighted voting and a baseline with score-weighted voting.

Two smaller issues. There are no error bars or significance tests, which matters when the headline gains are a few percent. And the hyperparameters were apparently selected on AIME-25, which also appears in the main table; the ablation shows robustness, so this is minor, but it should be acknowledged. Finally, the abstract claims 'strictly dominates,' but the latency table shows Gambit is sometimes slower than STEP (e.g., HMMT-25 on Qwen and Phi). The token savings are real, but wall-clock latency is not uniformly better.

Who is this for? Anyone working on test-time compute scaling or efficient inference serving. It deserves a serious referee; I would not desk-reject it. With a clean ablation and repeated-seed statistics, the empirical story would be much stronger. As it stands, I'd call it a good systems paper with an overstated attribution claim.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Gambit, a thought-level beam search algorithm for test-time reasoning. Gambit maintains a fixed-capacity pool of C active traces; every Δ steps it ranks traces by the average of an off-the-shelf hidden-state MLP scorer (the STEP scorer), prunes the bottom K traces, and branches from the top K traces via prefix-cache reuse, enforcing a zero-sum memory invariant. A decoupled scheduler/tree view introduces "ghost traces" to prevent memory-pressure evictions from collapsing the beam. The paper reports accuracy, token consumption, and latency across Qwen3-4B, DeepSeek-R1-8B, and Phi-4 on AIME-25/26, HMMT-24/25, and GPQA-Diamond, and claims that Gambit strictly dominates SC, Slim-SC, DeepConf, and STEP in accuracy and efficiency, with up to +6.7% absolute accuracy gains, >2× trace throughput, and up to 68.5% token reduction.

Significance. If the central claims held, this would be a useful contribution: it reformulates test-time scaling as hardware-constrained beam search, introduces a clean zero-sum prune-and-branch invariant, and demonstrates a system-level implementation with negligible overhead, a released codebase, and a detailed qualitative trace analysis. The comparison against STEP using the identical MLP scorer is a good experimental design choice for isolating the search topology. However, the paper's strongest claims are currently not established: the accuracy comparison is confounded by score-weighted aggregation, hyperparameters are selected on a benchmark that also appears in the main table, and no uncertainty quantification is provided. These are fixable with additional ablations and reporting, so the work is worthy of a major revision.

major comments (5)

[§5.1–5.2] The claim that accuracy differences are "strictly attributable to the underlying search topology" (§5.2) is not supported, because Gambit uses score-weighted majority voting while the baselines do not. Section 5.1 states that Gambit aggregates final answers via a score-weighted majority vote with a position-weighted penalty; SC, Slim-SC, DeepConf, and STEP are described as unweighted or pruning-based aggregations. Since the reported gains are small in absolute terms (e.g., +3.3% on AIME-25 is roughly one question out of 30), the observed improvements could be driven by the weighting scheme rather than by active reallocation. Please add an ablation of Gambit with unweighted majority voting, and/or a baseline (STEP or SC) that uses the same score-weighted vote, and report both accuracy and efficiency for these variants.
[§A.4 and Table 1] The hyperparameter selection procedure uses the test set. Figure 10 in Section A.4 selects K=16, Δ=200, w=12K, and r=0.9 on AIME-25 with DeepSeek-R1-0528-Qwen3-8B, and the same model/benchmark combination appears in the main results of Table 1 (DeepSeek-R1-8B, AIME-25, accuracy 85.8). Because the ablation is performed on a benchmark included in the main evaluation, the reported accuracy for that configuration is optimistically biased. Please select hyperparameters on a held-out validation set (or a separate benchmark) and show that the selected configuration also performs well on all reported benchmarks, or alternatively report all ablated configurations on all benchmarks.
[Table 1 and Table 4] The paper asserts that Gambit "strictly dominates" existing baselines, but the data do not support strict dominance on both accuracy and efficiency axes. There are no error bars or significance tests in Table 1, and several differences are within one or two questions on 30-question sets. Moreover, Table 4 shows cases where Gambit is not the best in latency or token consumption: for DeepSeek-R1-8B on AIME-25, Gambit consumes 4,211K tokens versus DeepConf's 3,753K and STEP's 3,711K; on HMMT-25 its latency is 2,169s versus STEP's 1,715s; and for Phi-4, Gambit is slower than STEP on every benchmark (e.g., 1,480s vs 1,155s on AIME-25). Please either soften the dominance claim to a targeted comparison (e.g., accuracy at a fixed number of completed traces, token reductions relative to SC) or provide a formal dominance analysis with confidence intervals.
[§4.1 and §5.1] The algorithm as specified is incomplete. Algorithm 1 defines scoring, pruning, branching, and ghost-trace eviction, but it does not define the hard floor δ=0.1 that Section 5.1 introduces and Section A.4 refers to as a "hard-floor threshold scan." Similarly, the "position-weighted penalty" used in the final score-weighted majority vote is mentioned in Section 5.1 but never formally defined in the algorithm or equations. These are load-bearing hyperparameters for reproducibility. Please add formal definitions and pseudocode for the hard floor and the aggregation penalty.
[Figure 9 and §A.2] The motivation for Gambit depends on the scorer's ability to rank partial traces, but Figure 9 shows that the off-the-shelf MLP's pairwise ranking accuracy is near or below random early in generation (approximately 0.50–0.65 depending on step fraction). The paper interprets this as motivation for the warmup threshold, which is reasonable, but it does not consider a calibration or selection-risk analysis: if the ranking signal is weak or miscalibrated, Gambit could underperform parallel sampling. Please add an experiment varying scorer quality (e.g., the causal scorer versus the MLP, or a deliberately noisy scorer) and report accuracy as a function of warmup threshold and scorer quality, to support the claim that the method is robust to the scorer signal.

minor comments (4)

[§A.5] The tree statistics in the runtime example are internally inconsistent: 256 root traces plus 1,339 branches gives 1,595 nodes, but the text reports 1,083 pruned and 256 completed traces, which sums to 1,339, leaving 256 nodes unaccounted for in the stated counts. Please reconcile these numbers.
[§4.1 and §5.1] The check interval Δ is described as "steps" in Algorithm 1 and Section A.4 but as tokens in Section 5.1 ("check interval Δ=200 tokens"). Please use one consistent unit throughout the paper.
[§4.1] The text says a "temperature multiplier" can be applied to branched children, but no value is specified in Section 5.1 or the ablations. Please state the value used in the main experiments.
[Figure 6] The claimed "more than 2× higher throughput" is based on a single benchmark (AIME-26) with no error bars across repeated runs; please report variance or additional benchmarks to support the generality of the throughput claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main comparisons are empirical and the scorer input is shared with the STEP baseline; the principal caveat is an attribution confound (score-weighted final voting), not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical systems comparison rather than a derivation from first principles, and I find no step in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. The central control is genuine: Gambit's main evaluation uses "the exact same off-the-shelf 2-layer MLP scorer from STEP" (Section 5.1), so the scoring input is held fixed between Gambit and its closest pruning baseline; the tournament operations (Eq. 2 and Eq. 3) and zero-sum capacity invariant are algorithmic structure, not a restatement of the scorer. The Appendix's custom sequence scorer is trained with a last-step binary cross-entropy on correctness labels (Eq. 7, Appendix A.1); this is standard supervised signal extraction, and the paper does not state that the training traces come from the evaluation benchmarks, so no leakage is established. The hyperparameter ablation in Appendix A.4 is run on AIME-25, which also appears in Table 1; this is a mild selection-on-test concern for that one cell, but the chosen configuration is not the optimum in Figure 10 (e.g., w=8K appears to give 90.0 vs. the selected w=12K's 85.8), and the same constant hyperparameters are applied to all other benchmarks and models, so the main dominance claims are not forced by the fit. The more serious issue is attribution, not circularity: Section 5.2 asserts "any variance in accuracy or efficiency is strictly attributable to the underlying search topology," but Gambit's final aggregation is a score-weighted majority vote (Algorithm 1) while the baselines are described as unweighted or similarity-based; no ablation isolates the weighting. That is an uncontrolled confound and a correctness risk, but it is not an equation-level equivalence or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation (DeepConf, Fu et al. 2025, coauthored by Jiawei Zhao) is used as a baseline and in related work, not as load-bearing evidence, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The algorithm rests on an empirical premise about hidden-state signals and on several system-level assumptions about KV-cache sharing and the fixed-pool model; these are stated in the paper but not derived. The free parameters are operator-selected and only partially validated, with the ablation using AIME-25 which also appears in the main evaluation.

free parameters (8)

Capacity C = 256
Maximum concurrent trace pool; operator-specified and held constant; chosen for hardware budget.
Swap size K = 16
Number of traces pruned and branched per tournament; selected via ablation on AIME-25 (Figure 10).
Check interval delta = 200 tokens
Tournament cadence; selected via ablation on AIME-25.
Warmup threshold w = 12,000 tokens
Minimum steps before a trace is eligible to branch; delays scoring until prefixes are stable; ablated on AIME-25.
Memory usage ratio r = 0.9
GPU memory target for the scheduler; ablated on AIME-25.
Hard floor delta = 0.1
Lower score bound for opportunistic eviction; stated but not ablated.
Temperature multiplier
Applied to child branches to promote diversity; exact value not specified in the main text.
Position-weighted penalty
Used in the score-weighted vote to favor later confidence; value not reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Hidden-state scores predict which partial traces will lead to correct final answers
The whole tournament ranks traces by average hidden-state score; Section 3 Figure 2 provides anecdotal support and Figure 9 shows partial signal strength. If the scorer is uninformative, pruning and branching are random.
domain assumption Successful and failed trajectories share promising prefixes early in generation
Establishes the value of checkpointing and branching; cited to Lightman et al. 2023 and Uesato et al. 2022; used in Section 3.
domain assumption KV-cache prefix sharing keeps memory footprint constant and lets branches inherit parents without recomputation
The efficiency claims depend on prefix reuse via the KV-cache; introduced in Section 4.1 and Figure 4.
domain assumption A fixed pool of C active traces is the right hardware abstraction for a single GPU
The zero-sum invariant and hardware budget model in Equation (1) treat C as a hard constraint; other serving or multi-GPU architectures may invalidate the comparison.
domain assumption Answer extraction and scoring are unbiased across methods
All baselines share the same vLLM and extraction pipeline, but any systematic bias in extraction or scorer calibration would affect the comparisons in Table 1.

invented entities (1)

Ghost trace
purpose: A trace evicted by the scheduler that remains logically active in the tree view to avoid under-capacity greedy branching.
Introduced in Section 4.2; its benefit is demonstrated only through system behavior and the reported results, not through a separate falsifiable prediction outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thought-Level Beam Search for Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAGSCWG7

@misc{pith2026260808020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thought-Level Beam Search for Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAGSCWG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08020}
}

abstract

Test-time compute scaling is a primary driver of performance in large reasoning models (LRMs), but extreme inefficiency bounds current approaches, shifting the critical question from \emph{how much} compute to spend, to \emph{where} to allocate it. We formalize test-time reasoning as a constrained compute allocation problem over partial trajectories. Under a fixed hardware budget, existing paradigms fail to actively allocate the compute to the most promising partial progress: traditional parallel sampling treats traces independently and induces severe memory bottlenecks, while subtractive pruning starves hardware and fails to actively and sufficiently shift the output distribution. To overcome this dichotomy, we introduce Gambit, an inference algorithm that executes \emph{thought-level beam search}. By periodically pruning unpromising trajectories and immediately branching from high-quality prefixes, Gambit dynamically concentrates compute onto the most promising reasoning traces via a light-weight scorer probing hidden states while maintaining continuous high hardware utilization. Extensive evaluations across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that Gambit strictly dominates existing baselines. Under identical hardware constraints, our method yields up to a +6.7\% absolute accuracy gain on HMMT-24 and +3.3\% on AIME-25 over pruning baselines, delivers $>2\times$ higher throughput on trace completion, and reduces total token consumption by up to 68.5\% relative to standard parallel sampling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08020 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Reasoning topologies for test-time compute allocation. (Left) Parallel sampling treats traces as independent trials, leading to wrong answers in majority. (Center) Scorebased pruning terminates unpromising paths but leaves the freed capacity idle, failing to actively shift the sampling distribution. (Right) Gambit actively reallocates compute: when low-scoring traces are pruned, it immediately branches from high-qu… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Branching from a high-quality prefix versus independent sampling on a hard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** GPU memory utilization and latency profiles during reasoning with batch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: End-to-end pipeline of Gambit on an AIME problem (capacity C=5, swap size K=2). During warmup, C=5 parallel traces are evaluated (color intensity denotes running score s¯∈[0,1]). Every ∆ steps, a tournament ranks the active traces: the K=2 lowest-scoring traces are pru…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Trace throughput on AIME26. Gambit effectively doubles the completion rate. Combined with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Efficiency vs. Accuracy trade-offs over all benchmarks. (a) Average Latency vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of unique tokens generated per completed trace on AIME-2026. By branching from shared high-quality KV-cache prefixes, Gambit drastically reduces the median number of new tokens required to explore alternative reasoning pathways compared to SC and STEP. 0 2…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Distribution of total sequence length (including inherited prefixes) for completed traces on AIME-2026. Gambit sustains significantly deeper, rigorous reasoning chains than subtractive baselines like STEP, which accounts for the serial decoding latency bottleneck despi…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Pairwise ranking accuracy vs. fraction of reasoning steps used (k%). Higher accuracy indicates better separation of correct and incorrect traces given only a partial prefix. system, the scoring mechanism acts as a negative filter: it can terminate unpromising traces, b…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Hyperparameter sensitivity of Gambit on AIME-25 with DeepSeek-R1-0528-8B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

[1]

2025 , eprint=

Phi-4-reasoning Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[2]

2023 , eprint=

Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[3]

2022 , eprint=

Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words , author=. 2022 , eprint=

2022
[4]

2022 , eprint=

Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know , author=. 2022 , eprint=

2022
[5]

2024 , eprint=

Monte Carlo Tree Search Boosts Reasoning via Iterative Preference Learning , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[6]

2023 , eprint=

Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[7]

2025 , eprint=

Gemma 3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[8]

2018 , eprint=

Diverse Beam Search: Decoding Diverse Solutions from Neural Sequence Models , author=. 2018 , eprint=

2018

Show all 93 references

[9]

2014 , eprint=

Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks , author=. 2014 , eprint=

2014
[10]

, year =

Lowerre, Bruce T. , year =. The
[11]

2023 , eprint=

RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[12]

2020 , eprint=

GLU Variants Improve Transformer , author=. 2020 , eprint=

2020
[13]

2025 , eprint=

Speculative Thinking: Enhancing Small-Model Reasoning with Large Model Guidance at Inference Time , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[14]

The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

SpecReason: Fast and Accurate Inference-Time Compute via Speculative Reasoning , author=. The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=
[15]

2024 , eprint=

Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[16]

2022 , eprint=

Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback , author=. 2022 , eprint=

2022
[17]

2023 , eprint=

Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[18]

2023 , eprint=

Let's Verify Step by Step , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[19]

Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , articleno =

Liu, Sheng and Ye, Haotian and Xing, Lei and Zou, James , title =. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , articleno =. 2024 , publisher =

2024
[20]

The 4th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS'24 , year=

Enhancing Language Model Reasoning via Weighted Reasoning in Self-Consistency , author=. The 4th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS'24 , year=
[21]

2025 , eprint=

Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verification , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[22]

2025 , eprint=

Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[23]

2026 , eprint=

Large Language Model Reasoning Failures , author=. 2026 , eprint=

2026
[24]

2025 , eprint=

Learning to Reason Across Parallel Samples for LLM Reasoning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[25]

The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Learning Harmonized Representations for Speculative Sampling , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=
[26]

2024 , eprint=

Medusa: Simple LLM Inference Acceleration Framework with Multiple Decoding Heads , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[27]

NVIDIA GB300 Grace Blackwell Superchip Architecture , year =
[28]

2023 , eprint=

Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[29]

2025 , eprint=

s1: Simple test-time scaling , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[30]

2025 , eprint=

Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[32]

2023 , eprint=

Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[33]

2025 , eprint=

Deep Think with Confidence , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[34]

2026 , eprint=

Hidden States as Early Signals: Step-level Trace Evaluation and Pruning for Efficient Test-Time Scaling , author=. 2026 , eprint=

2026
[35]

2023 , eprint=

Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[36]

2024 , eprint=

SGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programs , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[37]

2025 , url =

Introducing Claude 4 , author =. 2025 , url =

2025
[38]

2025 , month =

Introducing GPT-5 , author =. 2025 , month =

2025
[39]

Introducing gpt-oss , year =
[40]

2025 , eprint=

Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Survey , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[41]

Open Reasoning Tasks: LLM Reasoning Tasks Collection , author =
[42]

2025 , eprint=

Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[43]

2025 , eprint=

SeerAttention-R: Sparse Attention Adaptation for Long Reasoning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[44]

HMMT Problems Archive (2012--2023) , year =

2012
[45]

Archive of February 2024 , year =

2024
[46]

Archive of February 2025 , year =

2025
[47]

2025 , howpublished =

AIME Problems and Solutions , author =. 2025 , howpublished =

2025
[48]

2024 , eprint=

TidalDecode: Fast and Accurate LLM Decoding with Position Persistent Sparse Attention , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[49]

2023 , eprint=

GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[50]

2025 , howpublished =

Gemini 3 Pro , author =. 2025 , howpublished =

2025
[51]

2025 , eprint=

Qwen3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[52]

2025 , eprint=

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025
[53]

2025 , month =

OpenAI , title =. 2025 , month =

2025
[54]

2023 , eprint=

Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[55]

Langley , title =

P. Langley , title =. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000) , address =. 2000 , pages =

2000
[56]

T. M. Mitchell. The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. 1980

1980
[57]

2023 , eprint=

Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[58]

2023 , eprint=

LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023
[59]

Phi-4-reasoning technical report, 2025

Marah Abdin, Sahaj Agarwal, Ahmed Awadallah, Vidhisha Balachandran, Harkirat Behl, Lingjiao Chen, Gustavo de Rosa, Suriya Gunasekar, Mojan Javaheripi, Neel Joshi, Piero Kauffmann, Yash Lara, Caio César Teodoro Mendes, Arindam Mitra, Besmira Nushi, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, Olli...

2025 arXiv
[60]

Introducing claude 4, 2025

Anthropic . Introducing claude 4, 2025. URL https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-4. Announcement of Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4 models

2025
[61]

Aime problems and solutions

AoPS. Aime problems and solutions. https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/AIME_Problems_and_Solutions, 2025. Accessed: 2025-07-14

2025
[62]

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025

DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948

2025 arXiv
[63]

Hwang, Soumya Sanyal, Sean Welleck, Xiang Ren, Allyson Ettinger, Zaid Harchaoui, and Yejin Choi

Nouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Xiang Lorraine Li, Liwei Jiang, Bill Yuchen Lin, Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jena D. Hwang, Soumya Sanyal, Sean Welleck, Xiang Ren, Allyson Ettinger, Zaid Harchaoui, and Yejin Choi. Faith and fate: Limits of transforme...

2023 arXiv
[64]

Deep think with confidence, 2025

Yichao Fu, Xuewei Wang, Yuandong Tian, and Jiawei Zhao. Deep think with confidence, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15260

2025 arXiv
[65]

Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, 2023

Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14992

2023 arXiv
[66]

Archive of february 2024

HMMT . Archive of february 2024. HMMT Official Archive, 2024. Accessed: 2026

2024
[67]

Archive of february 2025

HMMT . Archive of february 2025. HMMT Official Archive, 2025. Accessed: 2026

2025
[68]

Slim- SC : Thought pruning for efficient scaling with self-consistency

Colin Hong, Xu Guo, Anand Chaanan Singh, Esha Choukse, and Dmitrii Ustiugov. Slim- SC : Thought pruning for efficient scaling with self-consistency. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng (eds.), Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on ...

2025 doi
[69]

Language models (mostly) know what they know, 2022

Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav For...

2022 arXiv
[70]

Large language models are zero-shot reasoners, 2023

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916

2023 arXiv
[71]

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, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.06180

2023 arXiv
[72]

Evaluating step-by-step reasoning traces: A survey, 2025

Jinu Lee and Julia Hockenmaier. Evaluating step-by-step reasoning traces: A survey, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12289

2025
[73]

Hidden states as early signals: Step-level trace evaluation and pruning for efficient test-time scaling, 2026

Zhixiang Liang, Beichen Huang, Zheng Wang, and Minjia Zhang. Hidden states as early signals: Step-level trace evaluation and pruning for efficient test-time scaling, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09093

2026 arXiv
[74]

Let's verify step by step, 2023

Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050

2023 arXiv
[75]

Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words, 2022

Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334

2022 arXiv
[76]

Bruce T. Lowerre. The HARPY Speech Recognition System . PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, March 1976. Department of Computer Science. DTIC Accession Number: ADA035146

1976
[77]

s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025

Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19393

2025 arXiv
[78]

Introducing gpt-5, aug 2025 a

OpenAI . Introducing gpt-5, aug 2025 a . URL https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/. Announcement of GPT-5, OpenAI's smartest AI system with built-in reasoning

2025
[79]

Introducing gpt-oss, 2025 b

OpenAI . Introducing gpt-oss, 2025 b . URL https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/

2025
[80]

Specreason: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning

Rui Pan, Yinwei Dai, Zhihao Zhang, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Jia, and Ravi Netravali. Specreason: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/...

2025
[81]

David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022

2023 arXiv
[82]

Glu variants improve transformer, 2020

Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05202

2020 arXiv
[83]

Large language model reasoning failures, 2026

Peiyang Song, Pengrui Han, and Noah Goodman. Large language model reasoning failures, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06176

2026
[84]

Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding, 2023

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

2023 arXiv
[85]

Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3215

2014 arXiv
[86]

Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ramé, Morgane Rivière, Louis Rouillard, Thomas Mesnard, Geoffrey Cideron, Jean bastien Grill, Sabela Ramos, Edouard Yvinec, Michelle Casbon, ...

2025 arXiv
[87]

Qwen3 technical report, 2025

Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

2025 arXiv
[88]

Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022

Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14275

2022 arXiv
[89]

Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, R. X. Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Y. Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08935

2024 arXiv
[90]

Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models, 2023

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, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

2023 arXiv
[91]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

2023 arXiv
[92]

Lillicrap, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Michael Shieh

Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, Wenyue Zheng, Min-Yen Kan, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Michael Shieh. Monte carlo tree search boosts reasoning via iterative preference learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00451

2024 arXiv
[93]

Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

2023 arXiv
[94]

Gonzalez, Clark Barrett, and Ying Sheng

Lianmin Zheng, Liangsheng Yin, Zhiqiang Xie, Chuyue Sun, Jeff Huang, Cody Hao Yu, Shiyi Cao, Christos Kozyrakis, Ion Stoica, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Clark Barrett, and Ying Sheng. Sglang: Efficient execution of structured language model programs, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07104

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2025 , eprint=

Phi-4-reasoning Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025

[2] [2]

2023 , eprint=

Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023

[3] [3]

2022 , eprint=

Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words , author=. 2022 , eprint=

2022

[4] [4]

2022 , eprint=

Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know , author=. 2022 , eprint=

2022

[5] [5]

2024 , eprint=

Monte Carlo Tree Search Boosts Reasoning via Iterative Preference Learning , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024

[6] [6]

2023 , eprint=

Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

2023

[7] [7]

2025 , eprint=

Gemma 3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025

[8] [8]

2018 , eprint=

Diverse Beam Search: Decoding Diverse Solutions from Neural Sequence Models , author=. 2018 , eprint=

2018