Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Rational Metareasoning for Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.05563 v3 pith:4DXPKZQR submitted 2024-10-07 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords modelsreasoningllmsacrosscostsfunctioninferencelanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Being prompted to engage in reasoning has emerged as a core technique for using large language models (LLMs), deploying additional inference-time compute to improve task performance. However, as LLMs increase in both size and adoption, inference costs are correspondingly becoming increasingly burdensome. How, then, might we optimize reasoning's cost-performance tradeoff? This work introduces a novel approach based on computational models of metareasoning used in cognitive science, training LLMs to selectively use intermediate reasoning steps only when necessary. We first develop a reward function that incorporates the Value of Computation by penalizing unnecessary reasoning, then use this reward function with Expert Iteration to train the LLM. Compared to few-shot chain-of-thought prompting and STaR, our method significantly reduces inference costs (20-37\% fewer tokens generated across three models) while maintaining task performance across diverse datasets.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. When to Plan: Learning to Select Between Reactive Control and Deliberative Planning

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An RL-trained meta-policy that uses ensemble uncertainty to choose between a cheap reactive policy and costly planning reaches goals faster than fixed baselines and adapts as the reactive policy improves.

Pith tools