arXiv:2606. 12935v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead.
Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead. We observe that probing partial traces at intermediate checkpoints can extract current answers without disrupting generation, revealing an evolving aggregate vote.
arXiv:2606. 30852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning models spend different amounts of useful computation across instances, but it remains unclear when a learned stopping rule improves over simple confidence or convergence thresholds.
The paper introduces the concept of persistent calibration, which requires a confidence estimator to accurately reflect a model’s evolving knowledge without additional supervision. It evaluates this by comparing confidence estimators trained on earlier checkpoints to their performance on later checkpoints using knowledge contrast sets—questions that shift from correct to incorrect answers across checkpoints. The study finds that standard inference-time and fine-tuning methods underperform compared to oracle methods, and suggests that multi-checkpoint training can improve calibration by identifying robust confidence features.
arXiv:2607. 22602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Inference-time scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving large language model reasoning, often delivering larger gains on difficult reasoning tasks than parameter scaling alone.
TRACES (Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost‑Efficient Early‑Stopping) is a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps of large‑language models in real time, enabling adaptive, cost‑efficient early stopping during inference. By monitoring the types of steps generated, the method identifies when models shift their reasoning after arriving at a correct answer, allowing for interpretable stopping criteria. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, GSM8K, AIME) and knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) show token reductions of 20–50% while preserving accuracy, with more conservative thresholds needed for harder tasks such as BeyondAIME and IMO AnswerBench.
arXiv:2606.16011v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Standard accuracy benchmarks evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) reach correct answers. However, they do not test whether models maintain...
arXiv:2604. 04930v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large reasoning models rely on long chain-of-thought generation to solve complex problems, but extended reasoning often incurs substantial computational cost and can even degrade performance due to overthinking.
arXiv:2604. 23270v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a simple and effective way to elicit step-by-step solutions from large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2608. 15065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models produce diverse, sometimes inconsistent answers across repeated queries on the same problem, so multi-sample inference is a prerequisite for reliable deployment.
arXiv:2602. 14307v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate discriminative tasks, provide accurate ground-truth answers, or evaluate complex solutions.
arXiv:2607. 18100v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Extended reasoning has become standard for frontier Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the trajectories these models produce remain largely uncontrollable.
arXiv:2605. 25143v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Test-time scaling improves language model reasoning by spending additional compute to explore multiple solution trajectories.