Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis: A Test Time Scaling Method to Enhance LLMs' Reasoning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reasoning checkpoints lift small LLMs past a 70B model on math.

desk verdict A useful new TTS variant whose headline AIME gain may hinge on an unvalidated assumption about PRM scoring of truncated paths. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17829 v1 pith:W67KDT6S submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CL

Zezhong Wang , Xingshan Zeng , Weiwen Liu , Yufei Wang , Liangyou Li , Yasheng Wang , Lifeng Shang , Xin Jiang
show 2 more authors
Qun Liu Kam-Fai Wong
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords test-timescalingchain-of-thoughtreasoningprocessrewardmodelmathematicalbeamsearchdiverseverifiertreeintermediatecheckpointsanswerclustering
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 proposes Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis (SRCA), a way to spend extra inference-time compute so that small language models reason more accurately, and reports that it consistently beats existing search-based methods such as beam search and Diverse Verifier Tree Search on four mathematical benchmarks. The idea is to interrupt the model after every reasoning step, force it to state an intermediate answer, and use those checkpoints twice: to cluster sampled paths by their intermediate answer so the search keeps diverse lines of attack, and to add the truncated partial paths to the final candidate pool so a good early answer can still win. With 128 samples, a 1B model using this method reaches 39.71% on AIME where the strongest baseline reaches 29.03%, and it beats a 70B model on three of the four datasets. The claim matters because it suggests that structured use of intermediate reasoning, rather than a larger model, can buy much of the accuracy gain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reasoning checkpoint: after detecting a step delimiter such as '### Step', the generator is paused, the fixed prompt 'So, the answer is' is appended, the model's short answer is recorded, and the generation state rolls back so normal reasoning continues. This gives every partial path a cheap intermediate prediction. ACS uses those predictions as clustering keys so the beam is not dominated by one answer family, and CCA uses them as extra candidates by scoring each truncated path $\hat{p}^{(j)}_t = p^{(j)}_t \oplus x_{\text{ckpt}} \oplus a^{(j)}_t$ with the process reward model. The final answer is chosen by last-step PRM score over the union of complete and truncated paths.

What would settle it

Take a set of solved problems with known correct answers, generate complete reasoning chains for each, cut each chain at every step to form truncated checkpoint candidates, and check whether the PRM's ranking of truncated candidates agrees both with the ranking of the same prefixes scored inside complete chains and with the actual correctness of the intermediate answer; if truncated-path scores frequently rank wrong intermediate answers above correct ones, the CCA selection mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that intermediate reasoning checkpoints make test-time search both more diverse and more frugal, and that the combination of Answer-Clustered Search (ACS) and Checkpoint Candidate Augmentation (CCA) drives the gain. ACS groups the N sampled continuations at each step by the answer the model gives when prompted with 'So, the answer is', scores each cluster by summed process-reward-model scores, and round-robin selects the M best paths across clusters. CCA turns every checkpoint answer into a candidate by concatenating it with the partial path, scores all candidates with the same process reward model, and returns the highest-scoring path. The paper reports that this pipeline outperforms beam search, DVTS, Best-of-N, Weighted Best-of-N, and self-consistency on GSM8K, MATH500, AIME, and OlympiadBench with both a 1B Llama model and a 0.6B Qwen model, and that with a stronger PRM the 1B model beats a 70B model on MATH500, AIME, and OlympiadBench.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that PRM scores on checkpoint-truncated paths (partial reasoning plus 'So the answer is' plus the intermediate answer) are valid and comparable to scores on naturally completed paths, so that selecting the highest-scoring truncated candidate is a trustworthy choice rather than an artifact of how the prompt was cut.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the same sampling budget ($N=128$), SRCA beats DVTS on all four datasets with both tested PRMs, with the largest gap on AIME (39.71% vs 29.03% with the Skywork PRM).
  • A 1B parameter model with SRCA outperforms a 70B parameter model on MATH500, AIME, and OlympiadBench, so checkpoint-guided search can substitute for model scale on hard math.
  • SRCA reaches accuracy at $N=16$ that baselines only reach at $N=64$ or $N=128$, making the same compute budget go further.
  • Early stopping at checkpoint score threshold $\tau=0.95$ cuts reasoning depth by about 27% while losing only 0.58% accuracy, and can even improve accuracy on two datasets.
  • About 19% of final answers come from the checkpoint-augmented candidate pool, so intermediate predictions are not just search signals but usable answers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test would compare PRM scores on truncated checkpoint paths against PRM scores on the same steps inside naturally completed chains; if rankings diverge, part of the reported gain may reflect scoring artifacts rather than the quality of the intermediate answer.
  • The same checkpoint mechanism could transfer to non-mathematical reasoning if 'intermediate answer' is replaced by a semantic summary or extracted claim, with clustering done by embedding similarity rather than exact string equality.
  • The method suggests a general 'early-exit ensembling' principle: every partial solution with a plausible answer is a candidate, so search algorithms should be evaluated not only on final paths but on the full set of prefixes they generate.
  • Because the reported benefit grows with PRM quality, pairing SRCA with calibrated or uncertainty-aware process reward models may yield further gains beyond the two PRMs tested.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis (SRCA), a training-free test-time scaling method for LLM mathematical reasoning. SRCA injects a checkpoint after each reasoning step, forcing the model to emit an intermediate answer and then rolling back to continue generation; it uses these checkpoint answers to (i) cluster candidate reasoning paths in Answer-Clustered Search (ACS) and (ii) augment the final candidate pool with truncated paths in Checkpoint Candidate Augmentation (CCA). Experiments on GSM8K, MATH500, AIME, and OlympiadBench with Llama-3.2-1B and Qwen3-0.6B policy models and two PRMs report consistent accuracy improvements over BoN, Weighted BoN, Beam Search, and DVTS, with especially large gains on AIME, and the paper also reports ablations, Pass@K, early stopping, and FLOPs comparisons.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, SRCA is a practically useful and simple addition to the test-time scaling toolbox: it requires no training, works with off-the-shelf PRMs, and appears to give the largest gains on hard math benchmarks where small policy models normally fail. The paper is honest about some limitations (step-boundary detection, interpretability of truncated paths) and includes a useful efficiency analysis. Its main weaknesses are that the key CCA mechanism relies on PRM scores for out-of-distribution truncated reasoning paths without validation, and the headline comparisons are presented without variance estimates or code, so several near-tie results are hard to interpret.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1); Section 4.1; Section 5.3] PRM scores on checkpoint-truncated paths are load-bearing but never validated. Section 3.3 constructs candidate paths via \hat p_t = p_t ⊕ x_ckpt ⊕ a_t (Eq. 1), and Section 4.1 states that the score of the last step is used as the path score for both full and truncated candidates. The PRMs used (DeepSeek and Skywork) were trained to score natural CoT steps, so scoring a forced "So, the answer is ..." ending is a distribution shift. This matters because Section 5.3 reports that 19.07% of final answers come from CCA, and Table 1 shows the largest headline gain (AIME: 39.71% vs. 29.03% for DVTS with Skywork PRM) is exposed to exactly this effect. If PRM scores on truncated paths reflect the answer-statement format rather than the correspondence between partial reasoning and the answer, the reported advantage would be a scoring artifact. The Limitations section (Section 7) acknowledges that CCA paths are incomplete but does not address verifier validity. I request a direct validation: compare PRM-selected truncated candidates against random or majority selection, report the correctness rate of high-scoring truncated paths, or calibrate PRM scores on truncated vs. naturally completed paths.
  2. [Section 4.2.1; Table 1] The "1B with SRCA outperforms 70B" headline is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The 70B numbers in Table 1 are greedy decoding only, with no test-time scaling applied, while SRCA uses N=128 samples plus a PRM. Moreover, the gaps on MATH500 (65.20 vs. 65.00) and OlympiadBench (27.75 vs. 27.70) are tiny, and no error bars or seeds are given, so these near-ties cannot be distinguished from measurement noise. Either compare 70B under a comparable TTS budget (e.g., 70B plus BoN, Beam Search, or DVTS at the same N) or rephrase the claim as closing the gap to a greedy 70B baseline; as stated, the abstract and Section 4.2.1 overstate the result.
  3. [Section 4; Tables 1, 4, 5; Figures 2-5] The central empirical claim — that SRCA consistently outperforms other TTS methods across all datasets — rests on single runs of a stochastic pipeline (temperature 0.8, top_p 0.9) with no error bars, seeds, or significance tests, and no code is released. Some differences are large (AIME +10.68 with Skywork PRM), but others are small (MATH500 +0.40 with Skywork PRM, GSM8K +0.76 with DeepSeek PRM). Because the same sampling budget and PRM are used to select final answers, a single unfortunate seed could change conclusions on the near-tie datasets. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the main tables and figures, or release code so that the reported single-run numbers can be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3] The first sentence of Section 5.3 says the results are shown in Figure 1, but the ablation results appear in Figure 5; this is a typo that should be corrected.
  2. [Sections 5.1 and 5.3] The contribution of CCA is described inconsistently: Section 5.1 says CCA contributes "approximately 10% improvement," while Section 5.3 says integrating CCA with baselines improves accuracy by 3–4% and reports a 19.07% Checkpoint Answer Rate. Please clarify which metric is being reported and align the wording.
  3. [Section 4.2.1] The statement that SRCA gives "approximately 10% absolute improvement over the BoN baseline" with the DeepSeek PRM is loose: Table 1 shows gains between 5.24 points (GSM8K) and 13.93 points (AIME). Please specify the dataset or report an average.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains repeated "70B" tokens that appear to be a rendering artifact; it should be cleaned up to read properly.
  5. [Algorithm 1] In Algorithm 1, the function name SRCA(p_t) is used for the checkpoint-injection operation, which is confusing because SRCA is the name of the whole framework; a dedicated name such as CheckpointInject(p_t) would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SRCA is an empirical test-time scaling method with no fitted-input prediction loop.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical benchmark results, not derived from an equation whose outputs are fixed by its inputs. Equation (1) merely concatenates a partial reasoning path, a checkpoint prompt, and an intermediate answer; this is a candidate-construction rule, not a prediction that reduces to a fitted parameter. All candidate paths, truncated and complete, are scored by the same external process reward model (PRM), and the same PRM scores the baselines, so no quantity is being predicted from the same data used to fit it. The one same-author citation (Wang et al., 2025) supports only the KV-cache rollback mechanism in Section 3.1 and is not load-bearing for the headline accuracy comparisons, which are controlled against Beam Search and DVTS on public datasets. The paper's Limitations section acknowledges that CCA's truncated paths reduce interpretability, and the possible distribution shift of PRM scores on truncated paths is an empirical validity concern rather than a circularity, because nothing in the paper defines success in terms of PRM scores on those truncated paths. No step in the paper is equivalent, by construction, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or latent entities are postulated; 'checkpoint' is an algorithmic operation, not an invented entity. The free parameters are disclosed hyperparameters held constant across compared methods.

free parameters (3)
  • Sampling budget N = 16, 32, 64, 128
    Sampling budget held equal across compared methods; not fitted to gain, but affects absolute accuracy.
  • Beam width M = 4
    Fixed beam width for all tree-search methods; chosen by hand and held constant across methods.
  • Early stopping threshold tau = 0.5 to 1.0
    Used in the early-stopping analysis only; not part of the core SRCA claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PRM step scores are reliable indicators of step-level correctness for the tested models and datasets.
    Assumed in Section 3.2 Scoring and Section 4.1; if the PRM is inaccurate, all tree-search methods degrade, but SRCA's relative gain could change.
  • domain assumption Forcing the model to complete 'So the answer is' at a step yields a meaningful intermediate prediction.
    Section 3.1; the checkpoint answers are the basis for clustering and candidate augmentation. The case study shows some early answers are wrong, but the method relies on the signal being useful overall.
  • domain assumption Step boundaries can be detected from delimiter tokens like '### Step' in the tested policy models.
    Section 3.1; the authors note in Limitations that slow-thinking models lack clear delimiters, so the method is not model-agnostic.
  • domain assumption PRM scores on checkpoint-truncated paths are comparable to scores on full paths for final selection.
    Section 3.3, Eq. 1, and Section 4.1; unstated and unvalidated. This is the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis: A Test Time Scaling Method to Enhance LLMs' Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W67KDT6S

@misc{pith2026250517829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis: A Test Time Scaling Method to Enhance LLMs' Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W67KDT6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17829}
}
read the original abstract

Mathematical reasoning through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has emerged as a powerful capability of Large Language Models (LLMs), which can be further enhanced through Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods like Beam Search and DVTS. However, these methods, despite improving accuracy by allocating more computational resources during inference, often suffer from path homogenization and inefficient use of intermediate results. To address these limitations, we propose Stepwise Reasoning Checkpoint Analysis (SRCA), a framework that introduces checkpoints between reasoning steps. It incorporates two key strategies: (1) Answer-Clustered Search, which groups reasoning paths by their intermediate checkpoint answers to maintain diversity while ensuring quality, and (2) Checkpoint Candidate Augmentation, which leverages all intermediate answers for final decision-making. Our approach effectively reduces path homogenization and creates a fault-tolerant mechanism by utilizing high-quality intermediate results. Experimental results show that SRCA improves reasoning accuracy compared to existing TTS methods across various mathematical datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of SRCA. Top-right: The checkpoint operation, which serves as the atomic operation in SRCA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance trends of TTS methods with DeepSeek PRM (top row) and Skywork PRM (bottom row) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pass@K trends of the 1B model with different TTS methods and DeepSeek PRM as the sampling number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The average accuracy and search depth of SRCA with early stopping strategies under different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study results on four datasets, grouped by different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04697 L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2503.04697

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, and Sasha Rush. 2024. https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/blogpost-scaling-test-time-compute Scaling test-time compute with open models

    2024

  3. [3]

    Zhenni Bi, Kai Han, Chuanjian Liu, Yehui Tang, and Yunhe Wang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09078 Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2412.09078

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V. Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21787 Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21787

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Yanxi Chen, Xuchen Pan, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2025 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19477 Simple and provable scaling laws for the test-time compute of large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2411.19477

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Zhipeng Chen, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Jie Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Daixuan Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zheng Liu, Xu Miao, Yang Lu, Lei Fang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04548 An empirical study on eliciting and improving r1-like reasoning models . Preprint, arXiv:2503.04548

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168 Training verifiers to solve math word problems . Preprint, arXiv:2110.14168

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Zeyu Gan, Yun Liao, and Yong Liu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15602 Rethinking external slow-thinking: From snowball errors to probability of correct reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2501.15602

    arXiv 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Art...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xinyan Guan, Yanjiang Liu, Xinyu Lu, Boxi Cao, Ben He, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, Jie Lou, Bowen Yu, Yaojie Lu, and Hongyu Lin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11504 Search, verify and feedback: Towards next generation post-training paradigm of foundation models via verifier engine...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. 2025. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.211 O lympiad B ench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AG...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Yancheng He, Shilong Li, Jiaheng Liu, Weixun Wang, Xingyuan Bu, Ge Zhang, Zhongyuan Peng, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Zhicheng Zheng, Wenbo Su, and Bo Zheng. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19361 Can large language models detect errors in long chain-of-thought reasoning? Preprint, arXiv...

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=7Bywt2mQsCe Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset . In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Informatio...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Mahoney, Sophia Shao, Kurt Keutzer, and Amir Gholami

    Coleman Hooper, Sehoon Kim, Suhong Moon, Kerem Dilmen, Monishwaran Maheswaran, Nicholas Lee, Michael W. Mahoney, Sophia Shao, Kurt Keutzer, and Amir Gholami. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13575 Ets: Efficient tree search for inference-time scaling . Preprint, arXiv:2502.13575

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chengsong Huang, Langlin Huang, Jixuan Leng, Jiacheng Liu, and Jiaxin Huang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00031 Efficient test-time scaling via self-calibration . Preprint, arXiv:2503.00031

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Yixin Ji, Juntao Li, Hai Ye, Kaixin Wu, Kai Yao, Jia Xu, Linjian Mo, and Min Zhang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02497 Test-time compute: from system-1 thinking to system-2 thinking . Preprint, arXiv:2501.02497

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jinhao Jiang, Zhipeng Chen, Yingqian Min, Jie Chen, Xiaoxue Cheng, Jiapeng Wang, Yiru Tang, Haoxiang Sun, Jia Deng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zheng Liu, Dong Yan, Jian Xie, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11694 Enhancing llm reasoning with reward-guided...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.291 Making language models better reasoners with step-aware verifier . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Yiwei Li, Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Boyuan Pan, Xinglin Wang, Bin Sun, Heda Wang, and Kan Li. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10480 Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2401.10480

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=v8L0pN6EOi Let's verify step by step . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Re...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Runze Liu, Junqi Gao, Jian Zhao, Kaiyan Zhang, Xiu Li, Biqing Qi, Wanli Ouyang, and Bowen Zhou. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06703 Can 1b llm surpass 405b llm? rethinking compute-optimal test-time scaling . Preprint, arXiv:2502.06703

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Liangchen Luo, Yinxiao Liu, Rosanne Liu, Samrat Phatale, Meiqi Guo, Harsh Lara, Yunxuan Li, Lei Shu, Yun Zhu, Lei Meng, Jiao Sun, and Abhinav Rastogi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06592 Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision . Pr...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    MetaAI. 2024. Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/. 2025-03-01

    2024

  17. [25]

    Kou Misaki, Yuichi Inoue, Yuki Imajuku, So Kuroki, Taishi Nakamura, and Takuya Akiba. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04412 Wider or deeper? scaling llm inference-time compute with adaptive branching tree search . Preprint, arXiv:2503.04412

    2025

  18. [26]

    Skywork o1 Team. 2024. https://huggingface.co/Skywork Skywork-o1 open series . https://huggingface.co/Skywork

    2024

  19. [27]

    Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08146 Rewarding progress: Scaling automated process verifiers for llm reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2410.08146

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Yang Sui, Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Jiamu Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Jiayi Yuan, Hongyi Liu, Andrew Wen, Shaochen Zhong, Hanjie Chen, and Xia Hu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16419 Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models . Preprint, arXiv...

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ziyu Wan, Xidong Feng, Muning Wen, Stephen Marcus McAleer, Ying Wen, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. 2024. Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ni, Linyi Yang, Ying Wen, and Weinan Zhang

    Jun Wang, Meng Fang, Ziyu Wan, Muning Wen, Jiachen Zhu, Anjie Liu, Ziqin Gong, Yan Song, Lei Chen, Lionel M. Ni, Linyi Yang, Ying Wen, and Weinan Zhang. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09671 Openr: An open source framework for advanced reasoning with large language models ...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.510 Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce LLM s step-by-step without human annotations . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meet...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Xiyao Wang, Linfeng Song, Ye Tian, Dian Yu, Baolin Peng, Haitao Mi, Furong Huang, and Dong Yu. 2024 c . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06508 Towards self-improvement of llms via mcts: Leveraging stepwise knowledge with curriculum preference learning . Preprint, arXiv:2410.06508

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models . In The Eleventh International Conferenc...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Zezhong Wang, Xingshan Zeng, Weiwen Liu, Yufei Wang, Liangyou Li, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16144 Chain-of-probe: Examining the necessity and accuracy of cot step-by-step . Preprint, arXiv:2406.16144

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Jinyang Wu, Mingkuan Feng, Shuai Zhang, Feihu Che, Zengqi Wen, and Jianhua Tao. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18478 Beyond examples: High-level automated reasoning paradigm in in-context learning via mcts . Preprint, arXiv:2411.18478

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Siwei Wu, Zhongyuan Peng, Xinrun Du, Tuney Zheng, Minghao Liu, Jialong Wu, Jiachen Ma, Yizhi Li, Jian Yang, Wangchunshu Zhou, Qunshu Lin, Junbo Zhao, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Wenhao Huang, Ge Zhang, Chenghua Lin, and J. H. Liu. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13639 A comparative s...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yuyang Wu, Yifei Wang, Tianqi Du, Stefanie Jegelka, and Yisen Wang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07266 When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms . Preprint, arXiv:2502.07266

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhiheng Xi, Dingwen Yang, Jixuan Huang, Jiafu Tang, Guanyu Li, Yiwen Ding, Wei He, Boyang Hong, Shihan Do, Wenyu Zhan, Xiao Wang, Rui Zheng, Tao Ji, Xiaowei Shi, Yitao Zhai, Rongxiang Weng, Jingang Wang, Xunliang Cai, Tao Gui, and 5 others. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.165...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Violet Xiang, Charlie Snell, Kanishk Gandhi, Alon Albalak, Anikait Singh, Chase Blagden, Duy Phung, Rafael Rafailov, Nathan Lile, Dakota Mahan, Louis Castricato, Jan-Philipp Franken, Nick Haber, and Chelsea Finn. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04682 Towards system 2 reasonin...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wei Xiong, Hanning Zhang, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. 2024. An implementation of generative prm. https://github.com/RLHFlow/RLHF-Reward-Modeling

    2024

  36. [44]

    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, and 41 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388 Qw...

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Xiao Yu, Baolin Peng, Vineeth Vajipey, Hao Cheng, Michel Galley, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhou Yu. 2024. Improving autonomous ai agents with reflective tree search and self-learning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  38. [46]

    Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Lulu Zhao, Yijun Wang, Zifei Shan, and Junxian He. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.17256 B-star: Monitoring and balancing exploration and exploitation in self-taught reasoners . Preprint, arXiv:2412.17256

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Di Zhang, Xiaoshui Huang, Dongzhan Zhou, Yuqiang Li, and Wanli Ouyang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07394 Accessing gpt-4 level mathematical olympiad solutions via monte carlo tree self-refine with llama-3 8b . Preprint, arXiv:2406.07394

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lunjun Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Hritik Bansal, Mehran Kazemi, Aviral Kumar, and Rishabh Agarwal. 2025 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15240 Generative verifiers: Reward modeling as next-token prediction . Preprint, arXiv:2408.15240

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Qiyuan Zhang, Fuyuan Lyu, Zexu Sun, Lei Wang, Weixu Zhang, Zhihan Guo, Yufei Wang, Irwin King, Xue Liu, and Chen Ma. 2025 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.24235 What, how, where, and how well? a survey on test-time scaling in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2503.24235

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Yu Zhao, Huifeng Yin, Bo Zeng, Hao Wang, Tianqi Shi, Chenyang Lyu, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo, and Kaifu Zhang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14405 Marco-o1: Towards open reasoning models for open-ended solutions . Preprint, arXiv:2411.14405

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Chujie Zheng, Zhenru Zhang, Beichen Zhang, Runji Lin, Keming Lu, Bowen Yu, Dayiheng Liu, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06559 Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2412.06559

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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...

  45. [53]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.