Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

An Empirical Study of LLM Reasoning Ability Under Strict Output Length Constraint

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under strict output-length constraints, the largest model and the best unconstrained reasoner are often not the best choices; budgets change which model, prompt, and size win.

desk verdict A useful, extensive empirical study of LLM reasoning under token budgets, but the early-stopping protocol bundles a pre-deadline warning with the answer injection and fixes α=25 without sensitivity analysis, so the rankings may be protocol artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14350 v3 pith:7KPWOGLI submitted 2025-04-19 cs.AI

Yi Sun , Han Wang , Jiaqiang Li , Jiacheng Liu , Xiangyu Li , Hao Wen , Yizhen Yuan , Huiwen Zheng
show 3 more authors
Yan Liang Yuanchun Li Yunxin Liu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelsstrictoutputlengthconstraintbudget-awarereasoningearlystoppingmodelsizescalinglatencybudgetpromptstylesmath
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 sets out to establish how open-source large language models behave when forced to answer within a fixed output-token budget, the setting that real time-sensitive deployments create. It tests 30 models on two math datasets across a wide range of budgets and introduces an early-stopping protocol that injects a concluding message before the budget is reached. The central claim is that constrained reasoning is not just slower unconstrained reasoning: the best model size, the best prompt style, and the best model type all change with the budget, and mid-sized models are often latency-optimal. The findings matter because they give practitioners a budget-specific, latency-aware basis for model selection instead of assuming unconstrained accuracy rankings transfer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the early-stopping protocol. Before generation, the model is warned that the keyword 'Time's Up!' means: stop reasoning and conclude with 'Therefore, the final answer is: $\boxed{[answer]}$'. When generation reaches $B-\alpha$ tokens, with $\alpha=25$, the message '**Time’s Up!** Therefore, the final answer is:' is appended to the output, and decoding continues within the total budget $B$. The paper argues that this reveals genuine constrained reasoning ability because the model must compress its completed reasoning into a final answer rather than being cut off mid-thought. The supporting machinery is the comparison grid: three prompt styles (step-by-step, coarse-to-fine, answer-and-verify), token budgets spanning dozens to thousands of tokens, and a measured near-linear mapping from output tokens to inference latency on a single GPU that converts token budgets into latency budgets.

What would settle it

Vary the early-stopping margin $\alpha$ (for example 0, 10, 25, 50, 100) and the concluding-message wording across all 30 models on MATH500, and check whether the best model, best prompt style, and best size band stay the same; if the rankings flip, the five findings are artifacts of the protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a set of five budget-dependent phenomena. First, interrupting reasoning early and appending the message 'Time's Up! Therefore, the final answer is:' consistently improves accuracy over abruptly truncating at the budget, on every dataset and prompt style tested. Second, no single prompt style dominates, but coarse-to-fine and answer-and-verify styles outperform step-by-step prompting in most constrained scenarios, although the benefit shrinks as tasks get harder. Third, accuracy does not scale monotonically with model size under strict budgets: for example, Qwen-2.5-7B outperforms Qwen-2.5-14B in parts of the GSM8K budget range, and Phi-3-small matches or beats Phi-3-medium on MATH500 at some budgets. Fourth, reasoning-specialized models are not always better than instruction-tuned or math-specialized models when tokens are scarce, because their accuracy curves rise too slowly at low budgets. Fifth, after mapping token budgets to on-device latency, mid-sized models around 7B are the best choice under tight latency limits, with larger models catching up only as the constraints relax.

Load-bearing premise

The early-stopping protocol assumes that appending 'Time's Up! Therefore, the final answer is:' and allowing 25 extra tokens reveals a model's genuine constrained reasoning ability rather than measuring prompt compliance, and this assumption is not tested by varying $\alpha$ or the message.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners should select models and prompts using budget-specific accuracy curves, because rankings under unconstrained evaluation do not transfer to strict output limits.
  • For latency-critical on-device deployment, a mid-sized model around 7B is often the best choice, and larger models only become worthwhile once the latency budget is relaxed.
  • Prompt style is a controllable lever under constraints: answer-and-verify or coarse-to-fine prompting can recover accuracy that step-by-step reasoning loses at low token budgets.
  • Evaluations of constrained reasoning should report early-stopping results, since direct truncation understates model capability, with differences reaching about 5% on MATH500.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The early-stopping margin $\alpha=25$ and the exact wording of the concluding message are free parameters; if model rankings shift when they are varied, the reported findings are properties of the protocol rather than of constrained reasoning.
  • The token-to-latency mapping was measured on one GPU type in single-request decoding; batch serving, quantization, or smaller accelerators could move the optimal size band, even if the qualitative mid-size advantage remains.
  • The evaluation protocol itself could be turned into training signal: fine-tuning models to conclude cleanly when interrupted at an arbitrary token count might directly improve budget-aware accuracy.
  • The data suggest plotting an accuracy-per-token frontier for each model family and prompt style, letting practitioners read off the optimal configuration for any latency budget without re-running full sweeps.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an empirical study of open-source LLM reasoning under strict output length constraints. The authors evaluate 30 models on GSM8K and MATH500 under varying token budgets, comparing two ways of imposing the constraint: directly terminating generation at the budget, and an 'early stopping' method that injects a concluding message ('Time\'s Up! Therefore, the final answer is:') at Budget-α tokens. Three prompt styles (step-by-step, coarse-to-fine, answer-and-verify) are tested. The paper reports five findings: (1) early stopping consistently outperforms direct termination; (2) coarse-to-fine and answer-and-verify prompts outperform step-by-step under budgets in most cases; (3) larger models are not always better, with non-monotonic accuracy within Qwen-2.5 and Phi-3 families; (4) reasoning-specialized models do not always outperform instruction-tuned or math models; (5) when token budgets are converted to latency on an NVIDIA A800, mid-sized models (around 7B) are latency-optimal. The authors acknowledge limitations in the final section and release code and data.

Significance. If the findings hold, they provide practically relevant guidance for deploying LLMs in latency-sensitive applications, showing that model choice depends on the output budget rather than on unconstrained accuracy. The study is broad in model coverage, uses external benchmarks with no fitted parameters, and is transparent about its limitations. The central empirical observations—that ranking and optimal prompt style change with budget—are plausible and worth reporting. However, the strength of the claims currently exceeds what the experimental design can support because the early-stopping protocol is not isolated from other prompt changes, no statistical uncertainty is reported, and the latency analysis rests on a single hardware profile.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Appendix A.2] The early-stopping method differs from direct termination in two bundled ways: the system prompt pre-announces the deadline and instructs the model to conclude with a specific format, and the injection fires at Budget−α with α=25 fixed. The comparison in Finding 1 and all subsequent findings therefore measure a model's ability to follow a pre-announced deadline protocol, not simply its reasoning under an output cap. Because a different α reallocates the budget between reasoning and answer-writing, and because the warning itself may change model behavior, the headline rankings in Findings 2–5 may be artifacts of this specific protocol. I request an ablation that separates the warning from the message injection, and a sensitivity analysis over α (e.g., α∈{10,25,50,100}) at least for a subset of models and budgets.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 2, Figures 2–5] All results are from a single greedy decoding run with no confidence intervals, standard errors, or statistical tests. Many reported differences are small (e.g., Table 2 shows gaps of 1–3 accuracy points between prompt styles for several models), and the claim in Finding 1 that early stopping 'consistently improves' accuracy on all combinations is based on visual inspection of the plotted curves. I request bootstrap confidence intervals over sampled problems (or per-problem standard errors) and, for the pairwise model comparisons in Findings 3–4, a test of whether the observed gaps are distinguishable from noise. Without this, the generality of the findings is not established.
  3. [Section 5.5, Appendix C.4] Finding 5 (mid-sized models are latency-optimal) is derived from a latency model profiled on a single NVIDIA A800 GPU with a fixed input length of 200 tokens and a linear output-token-to-latency mapping. The manuscript's own limitation section acknowledges that the token-latency assumption 'does not account for hardware-specific variations,' but the finding is stated as a general deployment recommendation. The optimal size under a latency budget depends on the prefill/decode speed ratio, which varies across hardware, batch size, and quantization. I request either a second device profile or an explicit parametric sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying decode throughput) to show that the 7B-optimal conclusion is not an artifact of one GPU's characteristics.
  4. [Sections 5.3, 5.4, Limitations] Findings 3 and 4 compare models that differ not only in size or reasoning specialization but also in training data, training procedure, and architecture. The limitations paragraph correctly identifies this as a threat to validity, but the body text presents the findings with general force ('larger is not always better'). I recommend either confining the claims to within-family comparisons (e.g., Qwen-2.5 and Phi-3 series, as is already partly done) or adding a caveat in the finding statements themselves so that 'larger' and 'reasoning model' are not read as causal categories. A within-family comparison with controlled training data would be the strongest fix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo 'reasoing' in the paragraph on efficient reasoning techniques; please correct it.
  2. [Section 5.3] The text writes 'Qwen-2,5-1.5B' with a comma; the model name should be 'Qwen-2.5-1.5B'.
  3. [Section 3.2] Footnote 1 justifies α=25 as 'large enough to cover the correct final answers,' but no supporting measurement is given. If the claim refers to observed correct answers, state it explicitly with statistics; otherwise this is a tuning choice that needs sensitivity analysis.
  4. [Section 5.5] The phrase 'mid-sized models are latency-optimal' is stated as a general finding, but the supporting figures (Figures 20–21) show only a subset of model families; the Qwen-2.5 series is the main evidence. Please clarify how much the conclusion generalizes beyond the families shown.
  5. [Section 1] The contribution statement claims 'the first thorough empirical study of LLM reasoning under strict output length constraints.' Given the growing literature on token-budget-aware reasoning (some cited in Section 2), 'first' may be hard to verify; consider softening to 'a systematic empirical study.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the findings are direct measurements on external benchmarks with no fitted input renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study, not a derivation. Its central claims (early stopping outperforms direct truncation; prompt-style rankings change; larger models are not always better; reasoning models are not always better; mid-sized models are latency-optimal) are all summaries of measured accuracy curves on GSM8K and MATH500 under token budgets. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction: the early-stopping constant alpha=25 is a fixed protocol choice, and no sensitivity analysis is claimed, but neither is any result derived from alpha by construction. Finding 1 compares two defined protocols and reports measured accuracies; that comparison is an experiment, not an identity. Findings 2-5 are then based only on the early-stopping protocol, which is a reporting decision, not a circular step. Citations are to external models, datasets, and evaluation frameworks, and there is no imported uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain that forces any conclusion. The limitations section candidly notes the token-latency correlation assumption, which is a construct-validity concern rather than evidence of circularity. The reported results are therefore self-contained measurements against external benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivation is present; the claims rest on measured accuracy curves. The main postulates are that the injected concluding message preserves true capability, that greedy single-run accuracy is a stable comparison basis, and that token count maps linearly to latency on the profiled GPU. Alpha is the only hand-set numeric parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha = 25
    Number of extra tokens reserved for the concluding message after early stop; chosen by hand and assumed large enough for all models and datasets, with no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Greedy decoding gives a stable, representative measure of model performance.
    Section 4.4 uses zero-shot greedy decoding to guarantee performance consistency, but no sampling variance or confidence intervals are reported.
  • domain assumption Token budget maps directly and linearly to inference latency.
    Section 5.5 and the Limitations assume a direct correlation between token budget and latency, measured on a single NVIDIA A800 GPU and then treated as a general mapping.
  • domain assumption The injected concluding message does not distort the measured reasoning ability.
    The early-stopping method appends 'Time's Up! Therefore, the final answer is:' and the resulting accuracy is interpreted as the model's constrained capability; this intervention may favor models and prompts that comply more readily.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Empirical Study of LLM Reasoning Ability Under Strict Output Length Constraint." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KPWOGLI

@misc{pith2026250414350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Empirical Study of LLM Reasoning Ability Under Strict Output Length Constraint},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KPWOGLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14350}
}
read the original abstract

Recent work has demonstrated the remarkable potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in test-time scaling. By making models think before answering, they are able to achieve much higher accuracy with extra inference computation. However, in many real-world scenarios, models are used under time constraints, where an answer should be given within a certain output length. It is unclear whether and how the reasoning ability of different LLMs remain effective under strict constraints. We take a first look at this problem by conducting an in-depth empirical study. Specifically, we test 30 LLMs on common reasoning datasets under a wide range of output length budgets, and we analyze the correlation between the inference accuracy and various properties including model type, model size, prompt style, etc. We also consider the mappings between token budgets and actual on-device latency budgets. The results have demonstrated several interesting findings regarding the budget-aware LLM reasoning ability that differ from the unconstrained situation, e.g. the optimal choices of either model size or prompt style change under different budgets. These findings offer timely evaluation to this area and practical guidance for users to deploy LLMs under real-world latency constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two methods used in our work to ensure strict [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Early stopping method (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) on GSM8K (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Under token budget, small models can outper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Under token budgets, reasoning models are not always better than instruction tuned or math models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of Qwen-2.5-Instruct models on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three different prompt styles used in experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Token budget implication and concluding message used in early stopping method. Step by step (sbs) prompt style Please reason step by step. Conclude with: Therefore, the final answer is: \\boxed{{[answer]}}. Where [answer] is just the final number or expression that sol…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Chat templates of different model series tested in our experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The chat template and an example of constructing model input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The mapping between output tokens and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on GSM8K datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on MATH500 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on GSM8K datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on MATH500 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on GSM8K datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Early-stopping (solid line) outperforms directly terminating (dashed line) method on MATH500 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of different models’ performance with early-stopping methods on GSM8K datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of different models’ performance with early-stopping methods on MATH500 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Qwen-2.5-Instruct and Phi-3 models’ performance on GSM8K and MATH500 datasets with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Models’ performance under inference latency budget on GSM8K dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Models’ performance under inference latency budget on MATH500 dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. ParaThinker: Native Parallel Thinking as a New Paradigm to Scale LLM Test-time Compute

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ParaThinker trains LLMs for native parallel reasoning and reports 7 to 12 percent higher accuracy on math benchmarks over sequential thinking with modest latency overhead.

  2. BudgetThinker: Empowering Budget-aware LLM Reasoning with Control Tokens

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A control-token insertion and two-stage training method that lets LLMs adhere to user-specified reasoning token budgets while preserving math accuracy.

  3. VeriThinker: Learning to Verify Makes Reasoning Model Efficient

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VeriThinker shows that fine-tuning a reasoning model only on a solution-verification task reduces chain-of-thought length on MATH500 and AIME by 20-45% while preserving or slightly improving accuracy.

  4. MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A reasoning model can cut token usage by roughly a third to a half without losing accuracy if it switches to brief output on low-uncertainty steps and expands only at high-uncertainty forks.

  5. ThinkDial: An Open Recipe for Controlling Reasoning Effort in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An open training recipe that teaches a 32B LLM to reason in three adjustable modes, cutting token use by half or three quarters with small accuracy losses.

  6. Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review that categorizes methods for shortening and adaptively triggering chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, et al. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14219 Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone . Preprint, arXiv:2404.14219

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Harkirat Behl, et al. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08905 Phi-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2412.08905

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ehrlich, and othe. 2024. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21787

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bradley Butcher, Michael O'Keefe, and James Titchener. 2024. Precise length control in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11937

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Guoxin Chen, Minpeng Liao, Chengxi Li, and Kai Fan. 2024 a . Alphamath almost zero: process supervision without process. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03553

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Liang, et al. 2024 b . Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21187

    arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, et al. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168 Training verifiers to solve math word problems . Preprint, arXiv:2110.14168

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mehul Damani, Idan Shenfeld, Andi Peng, Andreea Bobu, and Jacob Andreas. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04707 Learning how hard to think: Input-adaptive allocation of lm computation . Preprint, arXiv:2410.04707

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, et al. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948 Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch

    Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=QAwaaLJNCk Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate

    2024

  5. [13]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tingxu Han, Zhenting Wang, Chunrong Fang, Shiyu Zhao, Shiqing Ma, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18547 Token-budget-aware llm reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2412.18547

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Ma, et al. 2023. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14992

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021 a . Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, et al. 2021 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03874 Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset . Preprint, arXiv:2103.03874

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zhenyu Hou, Xin Lv, Rui Lu, Zhang, et al. 2025. Advancing language model reasoning through reinforcement learning and inference scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11651

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ryo Kamoi, Yusen Zhang, Nan Zhang, Jiawei Han, and Rui Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00713 When can LLM s actually correct their own mistakes? a critical survey of self-correction of LLM s . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:1417--1440

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Henighan, et al. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Harsha Kokel, Michael Katz, Kavitha Srinivas, and Shirin Sohrabi. 2025. Acpbench: Reasoning about action, change, and planning. In AAAI . AAAI Press

    2025

  14. [22]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, et al. 2023. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kuang-Huei Lee, Ian Fischer, Wu, et al. 2025. Evolving deeper llm thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09891

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yiwei Li, Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, et al. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ndR8Ytrzhh Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  17. [25]

    Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992 Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate . pages 17889--17904, Miami, ...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, et al. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050 Let's verify step by step . Preprint, arXiv:2305.20050

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, et al. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=v8L0pN6EOi Let's verify step by step . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rohin Manvi, Anikait Singh, and Stefano Ermon. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02725 Adaptive inference-time compute: Llms can predict if they can do better, even mid-generation . Preprint, arXiv:2410.02725

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Meta. 2024. https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/llama3_2/MODEL_CARD.md Llama 3.2 model card

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mistral. 2024 a . Mathstral. https://mistral.ai/en/news/mathstral

    2024

  23. [31]

    Mistral. 2024 b . Mistral nemo. https://mistral.ai/en/news/mistral-nemo

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mistral. 2024 c . Mistral small. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-Instruct-2409

    2024

  25. [33]

    Mistral. 2024 d . Un ministral, des ministraux. https://mistral.ai/en/news/ministraux

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sania Nayab, Giulio Rossolini, Marco Simoni, et al. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19825 Concise thoughts: Impact of output length on llm reasoning and cost . Preprint, arXiv:2407.19825

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ Learning to reason with llms . OpenAI Blog

    2024

  28. [36]

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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sho Takase and Naoaki Okazaki. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1401 Positional encoding to control output sequence length . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies,...

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Gemma Team. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301 Gemma

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    NovaSky Team. 2025. Sky-t1: Fully open-source reasoning model with o1-preview performance in \ 450 budget. https://novasky-ai.github.io/posts/sky-t1. Accessed: 2025-01-09

    2025

  32. [40]

    Qwen Team. 2024 b . https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5/ Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models

    2024

  33. [41]

    Qwen Team. 2024 c . https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b-preview/ Qwq: Reflect deeply on the boundaries of the unknown

    2024

  34. [42]

    Tianqi Wang, Enze Xie, Ruihang Chu, Zhenguo Li, and Ping Luo. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16996 Drivecot: Integrating chain-of-thought reasoning with end-to-end driving . Preprint, arXiv:2403.16996

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Xinglin Wang, Shaoxiong Feng, Yiwei Li, et al. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13457 Make every penny count: Difficulty-adaptive self-consistency for cost-efficient reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2408.13457

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, et al. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  37. [45]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Schuurmans, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '22, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc

    2022

  38. [46]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Silei Xu, Wenhao Xie, Lingxiao Zhao, and Pengcheng He. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18600 Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less . Preprint, arXiv:2502.18600

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, et al. 2024 a . Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, et al. 2024 b . Qwen2.5-math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12122

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Zhao, et al. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809--11822

    2023

  43. [51]

    Weizhe Yuan, Ilia Kulikov, Ping Yu, Kyunghyun Cho, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jason Weston, and Jing Xu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17744 Following length constraints in instructions . Preprint, arXiv:2406.17744

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.