Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low early confidence predicts correct LLM reasoning

desk verdict A careful empirical paper on a cheap selection metric for verifier-free test-time scaling; the central temporal-asymmetry mechanism still needs a length-control experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09898 v1 pith:DDFBUXMO submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CL cs.LG

Lecheng Kong , Like Hui , Haitao Mao , Jun Huan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords test-timescalingverifier-freeselectionconsilienceconfidencetrajectorybest-of-nsamplinglargelanguagemodelsreasoningcodegeneration
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

The paper argues that the standard way of doing verifier-free test-time scaling — sampling many completions and picking the one with the highest mean token confidence — systematically fails on hard problems, because uniformly high confidence often signals that the model committed to a single flawed path instead of exploring. It claims that correct reasoning traces have a characteristic temporal shape: low confidence early, when the model is still branching across candidate approaches, resolving into high confidence at the end, when the path converges on an answer. The authors propose consilience, a training-free selection score that subtracts a penalty for early confidence from the final confidence, and show that it beats confidence-maximization baselines and Pass@1 on graduate-level math, science, and free-form code generation, including agentic software editing. If the claim holds, verifier-free test-time scaling can be made reliable on exactly the open-ended tasks where external verifiers and majority voting do not apply.

What carries the argument

The central object is the consilience score, a combinatorial metric $S = C_{\mathrm{final}} - \alpha\, C_{\mathrm{initial}}$ built from token-level confidence values (negative mean log-probability over the top-$K$ candidate tokens). It measures the temporal asymmetry of confidence across a reasoning trace, penalizing premature convergence (high initial confidence) while rewarding final certainty; a reasoning-phase isolation step strips away answer-summarization tokens so the metric reads only the cognitive search phase.

What would settle it

Compare consilience against its inverted form, $S' = C_{\mathrm{initial}} - \alpha\, C_{\mathrm{final}}$, on the same hard LiveCodeBench split: if the inverted score selects correct completions at least as often, or if the AUROC of $S$ versus correctness drops to 0.5 on a dataset where the reasoning delimiter is removed or mis-split, the asymmetry claim is not the operative mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On hard problems (where a model's Pass@1 is low), the distribution of mean token confidence inverts: incorrect completions are not only more confident on average but form a heavy tail of 'confidently wrong' answers, so maximizing mean confidence is worse than random selection. The paper's central discovery is that the temporal order of confidence carries the signal that the overall level does not: correct completions show a rising trajectory, with lower initial confidence (reflecting genuine exploration of multiple paths) and higher final confidence (reflecting convergence), whereas incorrect ones often commit early with high confidence and stay overconfident. The paper operationalizes this as the consilience score $S = C_{\mathrm{final}} - \alpha\, C_{\mathrm{initial}}$, computed from token-level top-$K$ log-probabilities, optionally restricted to the isolated reasoning phase of a thinking model, and demonstrates that selecting the completion with the highest $S$ improves accuracy across HMMT, GPQA, LiveCodeBench, and SWE-bench, with the largest gains on free-form code generation where voting is impossible.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the premise that on hard problems, tokens near the start of the reasoning trace measure genuine exploration through low confidence and tokens near the end measure convergence through high confidence — so the computed score reflects an actual cognitive trajectory, not artifacts of token position or segmentation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Confidence-based test-time selection should evaluate the trajectory of confidence, not its average, on hard problems.
  • Verifier-free scaling can be applied to free-form code generation and agentic edits, where exact-match majority voting is impossible, with gains over Pass@1 (for example, GPT-OSS-120B on LiveCodeBench from 65.7% to 69.7%).
  • The metric is training-free, needs only token log-probabilities, and adds near-zero overhead, so it can be deployed through APIs that expose top-log-probs.
  • Penalizing high initial confidence is neutral on easy problems and beneficial on medium and hard tiers, explaining when prefix-confidence maximization helps and when it backfires.
  • Integrating consilience into an agentic loop improves SWE-bench resolution rates without full per-step scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed penalty $\alpha$ and window size could be replaced by a learned or calibrated function of task difficulty; the difficulty-stratified results suggest $\alpha$ might ideally scale with problem hardness.
  • The same temporal-asymmetry signal could serve as an intrinsic reward for reinforcement learning, shaping models to explore early and converge late, beyond selection at inference.
  • For tree-search test-time scaling, consilience could be used to select trustworthy root trajectories or prune branches, mitigating the outsized influence of early samples.
  • The dependency on model-specific delimiters for reasoning isolation suggests a testable extension: prompting non-thinking models to emit a final-answer marker should make the method uniformly applicable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes consilience, a verifier-free test-time scaling metric that selects LLM rollouts by their temporal confidence asymmetry: low initial confidence (interpreted as exploratory branching) resolving into high final confidence (interpreted as convergence). The score S = C_final − α·C_initial is computed from token-level top-K log-probabilities over initial and final windows, optionally restricted to the isolated reasoning phase. Experiments on LiveCodeBench, SWE-bench, HMMT, and GPQA across several models show that consilience outperforms mean-confidence baselines, especially on hard problems, and the paper includes robustness analyses for window sizes, α, and hyperparameter transfer.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it identifies a failure mode of confidence maximization (uniformly high confidence on hard problems), proposes a simple, training-free, logits-only selection metric that applies to free-form generation where majority voting cannot be used, and supports it with careful evaluation (shared pools, repeated subsampling, cross-validation, hyperparameter freezing, transfer, difficulty stratification, and statistical tests on the trajectory signal). The main unresolved risk is whether the selection gains reflect the temporal asymmetry itself or a length proxy, which the current analysis does not fully rule out.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (4), Tables 2–3] The consilience score S = C_final − α·C_initial uses windows that scale with sequence length for the 20% variant and are fixed for the 2048-token variant. Because hard problems' correct completions are likely longer, S may systematically prefer longer, more exploratory traces, and the reported gains over mean-confidence baselines are not separated from a length proxy. The paper reports no baseline that selects the longest completion, no AUROC for completion length as a correctness signal, and no length-stratified selection analysis. Please add (i) a longest-completion baseline, (ii) length AUROC on hard problems, and (iii) selection results stratified by completion-length quartiles; if the gains persist after length matching, the temporal-asymmetry interpretation is supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'We calculate the consilience score from Equation 2' should reference Eq. (4), not Eq. (2).
  2. [Section 4.3] The word 'consiliencee' in 'with consiliencee can be efficient and effective' is a typo.
  3. [Appendix B] The phrase 'the model generate large trunk of justification texts and reiterates on the answer' has grammatical errors; also the spelling 'interger' should be 'integer'.
  4. [Appendix A] The word 'evalutaion' in 'We use the evalutaion script supplied with the benchmark' should be 'evaluation'.
  5. [Section 4.4] The hard-problem thresholds (Pass@1 <20% for the AUROC analysis and <50% for Figure 3) appear to be chosen post hoc; please state whether these thresholds were pre-specified and report AUROC across the full difficulty range to show that the signal is monotonic in difficulty.
  6. [Table 2] No paired significance tests are reported for the selection accuracy improvements; given that some confidence intervals overlap (e.g., GPT-OSS-20B/LCB, Pass@1 80.2±0.1 vs. Cns-think 81.1±0.7), please report paired tests across the repeated subsamples or clarify the aggregate-level interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the consilience score is an externally testable heuristic, not a quantity that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central object S = C_final - alpha*C_initial is a hand-designed heuristic motivated by an observed phenomenon: correct traces show lower initial confidence and higher final confidence. It is not derived from first principles, and it is not fit to the correctness labels it later predicts. The metric is defined by Eqs. (3)-(4) and then evaluated by whether selecting the top-S completion improves accuracy on held-out benchmarks relative to Pass@1 and confidence-maximization baselines. That evaluation is external to the metric's definition: correctness labels come from benchmark test cases, and the comparison against mean-confidence baselines can fail. The paper also freezes alpha=3 and k=20% on a development setting (Qwen on LiveCodeBench) before applying the same configuration to other models and datasets, and it reports cross-dataset transfer in Table 5. This protocol reduces the concern that the reported gains are a fitted artifact. Residual risks (model-specific delimiter heuristics in Appendix B, and length as a possible confound) are correctness risks, not circularity: the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result; the paper explicitly distinguishes its contribution from prior confidence-dynamics works.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about the meaning of token-level confidence and its trajectory, plus empirically chosen hyperparameters. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the consilience score is a heuristic metric.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (initial-confidence penalty multiplier) = 3 (recommended range [2,5])
    Controls how strongly high initial confidence is penalized in S = C_final - alpha*C_initial. Fixed on a development setting; performance degrades for large alpha.
  • boundary window size W (k) = 20% of sequence length (or 2048 tokens for Cns-2K)
    Window used to compute C_initial and C_final. Evaluated in Figure 4; 20-30% is claimed robust.
  • skipped prefix P = 5% of sequence length
    Tokens skipped before the initial window to avoid prompt-independent first tokens.
  • top-K for token confidence = 5
    Number of top log-probabilities averaged in Eq. 1; chosen for API compatibility and because top-5 captures 93.9% of mass on one model.
  • agentic edit-step line threshold L = 40 for GPT-OSS-120B, 100 for Qwen3-Coder-Next
    Determines which bash edit commands trigger consilience sampling in SWE-bench; hand-tuned per model (Appendix I).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Token-level confidence as defined in Eq. 1 reflects model certainty and exploration.
    The paper uses negative mean log-prob of top-K tokens as confidence; no calibration evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Low initial confidence indicates exploration/awareness of alternatives; high initial confidence indicates premature convergence.
    Conceptual claim in Section 3.3, supported only indirectly by trajectory data.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed window sizes (20%, 5% skip) capture the initial exploration and final convergence phases across models/tasks.
    Hyperparameters chosen empirically; transfer checks are provided but it remains a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Model-specific delimiters isolate the reasoning phase faithfully.
    Appendix B uses </think>, <|channel|>final, ```python, \boxed, ```bash etc.; for Qwen these are task-specific heuristics, not structural.
  • domain assumption K=5 top tokens are sufficient for confidence estimation.
    Justified by 93.9% mass on GPT-OSS-20B/LCB only.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDFBUXMO

@misc{pith2026260809898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDFBUXMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09898}
}
read the original abstract

Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications. Among existing VF-TTS methods, confidence-based VF-TTS methods, which compute and rank rollouts solely by confidence, are particularly promising. Such methods introduce near-zero overhead for sample evaluation and require minimal access to internal model states, making the methods highly flexible across models and tasks. In this paper, we demonstrate a critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks. We observe a very interesting phenomenon: uniformly high confidence frequently indicates a failure to explore, favoring confidently wrong answers. To address this, our core insight is that robust cognitive search requires a specific confidence trajectory pattern: such methods perform exploratory branching at the beginning, as manifested by low initial confidence, and converge to a high final confidence solution. To implement this insight, we introduce consilience, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasoning. We operationalize this via a combinatorial metric that actively penalizes high initial confidence while strictly demanding final certainty. Extensive experiments covering both graduate-level mathematics problems and free-form code generation demonstrate that consilience effectively outperforms existing baselines, validating our novel perspective on completion confidence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Histogram of completion confidence on LiveCodeBench-V6 using GPT-OSS-120B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scaling pattern on different models and datasets. Consilience can scale in a robust fashion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Difference between mean confidence trajectory of correct and incorrect completions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Difference between Consilience Accuracy (last window= [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Consilience performance with different α. Stars mark the maximum performance improve￾ment over α = 0, and α > 0 systematically brings performance boosts. premature convergence is the dominant failure mode. This confirms that the initial-confidence penalty is harmless w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confidence in first 2048 tokens for two completions. Consilience pick, despite lower initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of entropy minimization in llm reasoning, 2025

    Shivam Agarwal, Zimin Zhang, Lifan Yuan, Jiawei Han, and Hao Peng. The unreasonable effectiveness of entropy minimization in llm reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2505.15134

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Math- arena: Evaluating llms on uncontaminated math competitions.Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmark, 2025

    Mislav Balunovi´c, Jasper Dekoninck, Ivo Petrov, Nikola Jovanovi´c, and Martin Vechev. Math- arena: Evaluating llms on uncontaminated math competitions.Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmark, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models.Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(16):17682–17690, March 2024

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, and Torsten Hoefler. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models.Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(16):17682–17690, March 2024. IS...

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29720 2024

  4. [4]

    Qwen3- coder-next technical report, 2026

    Ruisheng Cao, Mouxiang Chen, Jiawei Chen, Zeyu Cui, Yunlong Feng, Binyuan Hui, Yuheng Jing, Kaixin Li, Mingze Li, Junyang Lin, Zeyao Ma, Kashun Shum, Xuwu Wang, Jinxi Wei, Jiaxi Yang, Jiajun Zhang, Lei Zhang, Zongmeng Zhang, Wenting Zhao, and Fan Zhou. Qwen3- coder-next technical report, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00729

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Are more llm calls all you need? towards scaling laws of compound inference systems, 2024

    Lingjiao Chen, Jared Quincy Davis, Boris Hanin, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. Are more llm calls all you need? towards scaling laws of compound inference systems, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02419

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Universal self-consistency for large language model generation, 2023

    Xinyun Chen, Renat Aksitov, Uri Alon, Jie Ren, Kefan Xiao, Pengcheng Yin, Sushant Prakash, Charles Sutton, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou. Universal self-consistency for large language model generation, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17311

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Reasoning with exploration: An entropy perspective, 2025

    Daixuan Cheng, Shaohan Huang, Xuekai Zhu, Bo Dai, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhenliang Zhang, and Furu Wei. Reasoning with exploration: An entropy perspective, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.14758

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Shifting attention to relevance: Towards the predictive uncertainty quantification of free-form large language models, 2024

    Jinhao Duan, Hao Cheng, Shiqi Wang, Alex Zavalny, Chenan Wang, Renjing Xu, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Kaidi Xu. Shifting attention to relevance: Towards the predictive uncertainty quantification of free-form large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2307.01379

    arXiv 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification, 2024

    Ekaterina Fadeeva, Aleksandr Rubashevskii, Artem Shelmanov, Sergey Petrakov, Haonan Li, Hamdy Mubarak, Evgenii Tsymbalov, Gleb Kuzmin, Alexander Panchenko, Timothy Baldwin, Preslav Nakov, and Maxim Panov. Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncert...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Multiple choice questions: Reasoning makes large language models (llms) more self-confident, specially when they are wrong.IEEE Intelligent Systems, page 1–10, 2026

    Tairan Fu, Javier Conde, Gonzalo Martinez, Maria Grandury, and Pedro Reviriego. Multiple choice questions: Reasoning makes large language models (llms) more self-confident, specially when they are wrong.IEEE Intelligent Systems, page 1–10, 2026. ISSN 1941-1294. doi: 10.1109/mi...

    2026

  3. [11]

    Deep think with confidence, 2025

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

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zico Kolter, Andrej Risteski, and Aditi Raghunathan

    Jingchu Gai, Guanning Zeng, Christina Baek, Chen Wu, J. Zico Kolter, Andrej Risteski, and Aditi Raghunathan. Understanding and mitigating premature confidence for better llm reasoning,

  5. [13]

    A survey of confidence estimation and calibration in large language models

    Jiahui Geng, Fengyu Cai, Yuxia Wang, Heinz Koeppl, Preslav Nakov, and Iryna Gurevych. A survey of confidence estimation and calibration in large language models. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Ch...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda ...

    2025

  7. [15]

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

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Ar- mando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.07974

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan

    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?, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Scalable best-of-n selection for large language models via self-certainty, 2025

    Zhewei Kang, Xuandong Zhao, and Dawn Song. Scalable best-of-n selection for large language models via self-certainty, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18581

    2025

  10. [18]

    Early-token confidence predicts reasoning quality in multi-agent llm debate, 2026

    Ali Keramati, Justin Cheok, Jacob Horne, and Mark Warschauer. Early-token confidence predicts reasoning quality in multi-agent llm debate, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2606.10307

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Scaling test-time compute for agentic coding, 2026

    Joongwon Kim, Wannan Yang, Kelvin Niu, Hongming Zhang, Yun Zhu, Eryk Helenowski, Ruan Silva, Zhengxing Chen, Srinivasan Iyer, Manzil Zaheer, Daniel Fried, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Sanjeev Arora, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Anirudh Goyal. Scaling test-time compute f...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hung Le, Yue Wang, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Silvio Savarese, and Steven C. H. Hoi. Coderl: Mastering code generation through pretrained models and deep reinforcement learning, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2207.01780. 13

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Know when to explore: Difficulty-aware certainty as a guide for llm reinforcement learning, 2025

    Ang Li, Zhihang Yuan, Yang Zhang, Shouda Liu, and Yisen Wang. Know when to explore: Difficulty-aware certainty as a guide for llm reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2509.00125

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning,

    Yiwei Li, Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Boyuan Pan, Xinglin Wang, Bin Sun, Heda Wang, and Kan Li. Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning,

  16. [24]

    Lost at the beginning of reasoning, 2025

    Baohao Liao, Xinyi Chen, Sara Rajaee, Yuhui Xu, Christian Herold, Anders Søgaard, Maarten de Rijke, and Christof Monz. Lost at the beginning of reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2506.22058

    2025

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback, 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterativ...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Temporalizing confidence: Evaluation of chain-of-thought reasoning with signal temporal logic, 2025

    Zhenjiang Mao, Artem Bisliouk, Rohith Reddy Nama, and Ivan Ruchkin. Temporalizing confidence: Evaluation of chain-of-thought reasoning with signal temporal logic, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08243

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    OpenAI, :, Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, Alex Iftimie, Alex Karpenko, Alex Tachard Passos, Alexander Neitz, Alexander Prokofiev, Alexander Wei, Allison Tam, Ally Bennet...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    OpenAI, :, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Jason Ai, Sam Altman, Andy Applebaum, Edwin Arbus, Rahul K. Arora, Yu Bai, Bowen Baker, Haiming Bao, Boaz Barak, Ally Bennett, Tyler Bertao, Nivedita Brett, Eugene Brevdo, Greg Brockman, Sebastien Bubeck, Che Chang, Kai Chen, Mark Chen,...

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Maximizing prefix-confidence at test-time efficiently improves mathematical reasoning, 2025

    Matthias Otth, Jonas Hübotter, Ido Hakimi, and Andreas Krause. Maximizing prefix-confidence at test-time efficiently improves mathematical reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.18122

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators, 2022

    William Saunders, Catherine Yeh, Jeff Wu, Steven Bills, Long Ouyang, Jonathan Ward, and Jan Leike. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators, 2022. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2206.05802

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Scaling test-time compute without verification or rl is suboptimal, 2025

    Amrith Setlur, Nived Rajaraman, Sergey Levine, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling test-time compute without verification or rl is suboptimal, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12118

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2408.03314

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Guillaume Lajoie, Glen Berseth, Nikolay Malkin, and Moksh Jain

    Siddarth Venkatraman, Vineet Jain, Sarthak Mittal, Vedant Shah, Johan Obando-Ceron, Yoshua Bengio, Brian R. Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Guillaume Lajoie, Glen Berseth, Nikolay Malkin, and Moksh Jain. Recursive self-aggregation unlocks deep thinking in large language models, ...

    2026

  28. [36]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce LLMs step-by-step without human annotations

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce LLMs step-by-step without human annotations. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meetin...

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Every rollout counts: Optimal resource allocation for efficient test-time scaling, 2025

    Xinglin Wang, Yiwei Li, Shaoxiong Feng, Peiwen Yuan, Yueqi Zhang, Jiayi Shi, Chuyi Tan, Boyuan Pan, Yao Hu, and Kan Li. Every rollout counts: Optimal resource allocation for efficient test-time scaling, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15707

    2025

  30. [38]

    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. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Inference time optimization with confidence dynamics, 2026

    Yu Wang, Minghao Liu, Jiayun Wang, Jinrui Huang, Ankit Shah, and Wei Wei. Inference time optimization with confidence dynamics, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25244

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Unlocking exploration in rlvr: Uncertainty-aware advantage shaping for deeper reasoning, 2026

    Can Xie, Ruotong Pan, Xiangyu Wu, Yunfei Zhang, Jiayi Fu, Tingting Gao, and Guorui Zhou. Unlocking exploration in rlvr: Uncertainty-aware advantage shaping for deeper reasoning, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10649

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jia...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    SWE-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering

    John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. SWE-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. U...

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Reasoning models better express their confidence,

    Dongkeun Yoon, Seungone Kim, Sohee Yang, Sunkyoung Kim, Soyeon Kim, Yongil Kim, Eunbi Choi, Yireun Kim, and Minjoon Seo. Reasoning models better express their confidence,

  37. [45]

    Pruning the unsurprising: Efficient llm reasoning via first-token surprisal, 2026

    Wenhao Zeng, Yaoning Wang, Chao Hu, Yuling Shi, Chengcheng Wan, Hongyu Zhang, and Xiaodong Gu. Pruning the unsurprising: Efficient llm reasoning via first-token surprisal, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05988

    2026

  38. [46]

    Opencodeinterpreter: Integrating code generation with execution and refinement,

    Tianyu Zheng, Ge Zhang, Tianhao Shen, Xueling Liu, Bill Yuchen Lin, Jie Fu, Wenhu Chen, and Xiang Yue. Opencodeinterpreter: Integrating code generation with execution and refinement,

  39. [47]

    high" reasoning effort mode to the GPT- OSS-20B model, while utilizing the

    Yuxin Zuo, Kaiyan Zhang, Li Sheng, Shang Qu, Ganqu Cui, Xuekai Zhu, Haozhan Li, Yuchen Zhang, Xinwei Long, Ermo Hua, Biqing Qi, Youbang Sun, Zhiyuan Ma, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. Ttrl: Test-time reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2504.16084. ...

    2025 arXiv

  40. [50]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14658

    arXiv

  41. [52]

    if its value is already in the path, we cannot extend further

    Create adjacency list: for commits to implementation token ~766 (fk=11.27) Implementation ```python class Solution: def longestSpecialPath(self, edges: List[List[int]], nums: List[int]) -> List[int]: from collections import defaultdict n = len(nums) # Build adjacency list grap...

    1989

  42. [53]

    We analyze this response via keyword matching to determine if it constitutes a file-editing action (specifically checking for: sed -i,cat «,tee ,> /,patch , orEOF)

    Base Sampling and Detection:For any given step, we initially sample a single standard completion. We analyze this response via keyword matching to determine if it constitutes a file-editing action (specifically checking for: sed -i,cat «,tee ,> /,patch , orEOF)

  43. [54]

    If an editing keyword is present, and the bash command is larger then L lines, the step is flagged as a critical reasoning node

    Conditional Triggering:If the step is merely exploratory (no keywords detected), it is executed normally. If an editing keyword is present, and the bash command is larger then L lines, the step is flagged as a critical reasoning node. (We use L= 40 for GPT-OSS-120B, andL= 100f...

  44. [55]

    Parallel Generation and Filtering:At a flagged node, we sample K parallel completions. To ensure the agent adheres to the established workflow and intent of the base trajectory, we filter these K candidates, retaining only those that utilize the same editing keywords identifie...

  45. [56]

    We note that this keyword-triggered interception is an intentionally coarse harness

    Consilience Selection:Finally, we evaluate the isolated reasoning phases of the filtered pool and apply our consilience metric to select the most structurally robust editing command for execution. We note that this keyword-triggered interception is an intentionally coarse harn...

  46. [2024]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10480

    arXiv

  47. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14489

  48. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24396

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.