arxiv: 2605.03314 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

When to Think, When to Speak: Learning Disclosure Policies for LLM Reasoning

Jiaqi Wei , Xuehang Guo , Pengfei Yu , Xiang Zhang , Wanli Ouyang , Siqi Sun , Qingyun Wang , Chenyu You

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords LLM reasoningdisclosure timinginterleaved generationaccuracy-latency trade-offpartial disclosureentailment trainingstreaming interfaces

0 comments

The pith

LLMs can be trained to interleave private reasoning with supported partial disclosures, improving accuracy while reducing the delay before first useful output.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that single-stream LLM generation forces a trade-off between extra thinking time and early commitment to output. It introduces a method to let the model decide disclosure timing by interleaving private reasoning steps with answer prefixes only when those prefixes are entailed by the reasoning seen so far. Training uses constructed trajectories that pair answer starts with supporting reasoning prefixes, followed by supervised fine-tuning to learn the format and reinforcement learning to maintain reasoning quality. This produces better accuracy-versus-content-latency curves on both in-domain math and out-of-domain science questions across two model scales.

Core claim

Side-by-Side Interleaved Reasoning lets the model continue internal computation while releasing answer tokens only when they are supported by the reasoning produced up to that point. Entailment-aligned trajectories are built by matching answer prefixes to the reasoning prefixes that justify them, then the model is trained with SFT to acquire the dual semantics and RL to restore performance under the interleaved format. On Qwen3 models, this yields improved accuracy-content-latency Pareto fronts measured by token-level proxies such as inter-update waiting time, for both AIME25 and GPQA-Diamond.

What carries the argument

Side-by-Side (SxS) Interleaved Reasoning: the mechanism that keeps private reasoning and public disclosure in one context while releasing content only when it is supported by the reasoning so far.

If this is right

Accuracy improves or stays the same while the first useful tokens appear earlier on average.
The same training recipe works for both mixture-of-experts and dense architectures.
The approach applies to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks without task-specific redesign.
Token-level latency proxies such as inter-update gaps become controllable without sacrificing reasoning depth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same interleaving idea could let users see partial solutions in real time while the model keeps thinking in the background.
If the support check is made explicit, it may reduce the chance that early output locks the model into an incorrect path.
The training method of constructing entailed prefix pairs could be reused for other controllable generation tasks such as tool use or multi-step planning.

Load-bearing premise

That trajectories built by matching answer prefixes to supporting reasoning prefixes will train a policy that avoids filler text and still generalizes outside the training distribution.

What would settle it

On a held-out benchmark, an SxS-trained model produces either lower final accuracy or longer average time until first correct content token than a standard streaming baseline under the same token budget.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03314 by Chenyu You, Jiaqi Wei, Pengfei Yu, Qingyun Wang, Siqi Sun, Wanli Ouyang, Xiang Zhang, Xuehang Guo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Motivation and overview. (A) In a single visible stream, delaying disclosure yields a long silence tax before task-relevant content appears, while naive early streaming can reduce delay but risks premature commitment that biases what follows. (B) SxS makes visibility controllable: the model discloses only reasoningsupported partial answers (speak) while continuing private deliberation (think) in the same… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of SxS training. We construct entailment-aligned interleaved reasoning/answer segments for dual-action SFT, then apply GRPO-based RL to learn the disclosure (pacing) policy. Let Dec be a decoding rule (e.g., greedy, top-k, nucleus sampling) that induces a (possibly stochastic) distribution over continuations given (x, Γt). We define the decodingfeasible set as its support: Ydec(x, Γt) ≜ Supp Dec … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: RL Training Dynamics on AIME25. We compare the Standard CoT baseline against our Interleaved Reasoning method. Shaded regions denote 95% confidence intervals. Interleaved thinking model was trained for an additional 120 steps in the RL stage to cover the recovery cost at the beginning. observe a collapse to a single monolithic block, suggesting that the interleaved behavior is reasonably stable even under … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Reasoning block counts and accuracy during RL for Qwen3-4B, with and without an auxiliary incentive for interleaving granularity. cially on Qwen3-4B. On LCB, SxS RL Final slightly improves over Standard CoT RL Final on Qwen3-4B (39.62 vs. 39.34) while substantially reducing latency, with AIRW dropping from 12,579 to 9,631; on Qwen3-30B-A3B, it reaches nearly identical accuracy (54.60 vs. 54.79) with lower… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In single-stream autoregressive interfaces, the same tokens both update the model state and constitute an irreversible public commitment. This coupling creates a silence tax: additional deliberation postpones the first task-relevant content, while naive early streaming risks premature commitments that bias subsequent generations. We introduce Side-by-Side (SxS) Interleaved Reasoning, which makes disclosure timing a controllable decision within standard autoregressive generation. SxS interleaves partial disclosures with continued private reasoning in the same context, but releases content only when it is supported by the reasoning so far. To learn such pacing without incentivizing filler, we construct entailment-aligned interleaved trajectories by matching answer prefixes to supporting reasoning prefixes, then train with SFT to acquire the dual-action semantics and RL to recover reasoning performance under the new format. Across two Qwen3 architectures/scales (MoE Qwen3-30B-A3B, dense Qwen3-4B) and both in-domain (AIME25) and out-of-domain (GPQA-Diamond) benchmarks, SxS improves accuracy--content-latency Pareto trade-offs under token-level proxies such as inter-update waiting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

SxS gives a workable way to interleave private reasoning with timed public disclosures in standard generation, but the prefix-matching step for training data needs close checking on whether it actually produces supported pairs.

read the letter

The main point is that this work trains models to output some reasoning tokens publicly only when they are backed by the private chain so far, using a Side-by-Side format inside normal autoregressive decoding. They build the training examples by matching answer prefixes to reasoning prefixes, run SFT to teach the dual-action behavior, then apply RL to hold accuracy steady. The result is reported better accuracy-content-latency curves on AIME25 and GPQA-Diamond for both a dense 4B and an MoE 30B Qwen3 model, using simple token-level proxies like inter-update wait time. That combination of construction method and dual-objective training is the concrete new piece relative to earlier streaming or CoT work. It directly targets the silence tax and premature-commitment problem in single-stream interfaces, which is a real deployment pain point. The in-domain and out-of-domain split is also useful to see. The soft spot sits in the trajectory construction. Prefix matching alone does not guarantee that every disclosed prefix is entailed by its paired private reasoning prefix, and the abstract gives no sign of an NLI filter, scoring step, or manual check. If a noticeable share of the pairs are only loosely related, SFT will bake in the wrong timing semantics and the RL reward on final accuracy may not clean it up reliably. That undercuts the no-filler and generalization claims until the paper shows the actual verification or failure rate. The experiments sound like they have the right scope, but the lack of any numeric detail in the summary makes it impossible to judge effect size or variance from the abstract alone. This is for groups working on latency-sensitive LLM serving or controlled reasoning output. It is grounded enough in a practical problem and has enough experimental breadth to deserve a serious referee, though the reviewers should be asked to examine the data-construction pipeline in detail. I would send it for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Side-by-Side (SxS) Interleaved Reasoning to address the coupling of private deliberation and public commitment in autoregressive LLM generation. It constructs entailment-aligned training trajectories by prefix-matching answer segments to supporting reasoning segments, applies supervised fine-tuning to learn dual-action (think/speak) semantics, and uses RL to restore reasoning performance. The central empirical claim is that this yields improved accuracy--content-latency Pareto frontiers, measured via token-level proxies such as inter-update waiting time, on both in-domain (AIME25) and out-of-domain (GPQA-Diamond) benchmarks for two Qwen3 models (30B-A3B MoE and 4B dense).

Significance. If the empirical results and generalization claims hold after verification of the training data, the work would be a meaningful contribution to controllable reasoning interfaces. It directly targets the silence tax and premature-commitment problems in single-stream generation, offers a practical training recipe that stays within standard autoregressive frameworks, and demonstrates cross-scale and cross-domain robustness. The combination of SFT for format acquisition and RL for performance recovery is a reasonable design choice that could influence future work on pacing and disclosure policies.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2 (Trajectory Construction): The entailment-aligned trajectories are built by matching answer prefixes to supporting reasoning prefixes, yet the manuscript provides no description of an explicit entailment filter, NLI scorer, or human validation step. If a non-negligible fraction of pairs contain unsupported or only loosely related content, SFT will embed incorrect dual-action semantics; subsequent RL (whose reward is presumably accuracy-based) cannot reliably correct the timing policy. This directly threatens both the “no filler” guarantee and the reported OOD generalization on GPQA-Diamond.
[Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Experiments): The abstract asserts clear Pareto improvements across architectures and benchmarks but supplies no numerical deltas, baseline comparisons, ablation results, or error bars. Without these details it is impossible to judge the magnitude or statistical reliability of the claimed gains; the central empirical claim therefore rests on an unverified summary.

minor comments (2)

[§4] The definition of the token-level latency proxy (inter-update waiting) should be formalized with an equation or pseudocode to avoid ambiguity in replication.
[§5] Figure captions and axis labels in the Pareto plots could be expanded to explicitly state the exact metrics (accuracy, content tokens, waiting time) and the number of runs used for each point.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important aspects of our trajectory construction and empirical presentation. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Trajectory Construction): The entailment-aligned trajectories are built by matching answer prefixes to supporting reasoning prefixes, yet the manuscript provides no description of an explicit entailment filter, NLI scorer, or human validation step. If a non-negligible fraction of pairs contain unsupported or only loosely related content, SFT will embed incorrect dual-action semantics; subsequent RL (whose reward is presumably accuracy-based) cannot reliably correct the timing policy. This directly threatens both the “no filler” guarantee and the reported OOD generalization on GPQA-Diamond.

Authors: The entailment alignment is achieved by construction through prefix-matching: answer prefixes are extracted from the final generated answer, and paired only with the initial reasoning segments that directly precede and produce them in the original autoregressive trajectory. Because the reasoning prefix is the coherent prefix of the chain leading to that answer, it inherently supports the disclosed content without external filtering. No separate NLI scorer or human validation step was used in the pipeline described. We acknowledge that §3.2 would benefit from a more explicit description of this structural guarantee and the matching procedure. In the revised manuscript, we will expand §3.2 with pseudocode for prefix selection, a discussion of why this avoids unsupported pairs, and how the accuracy-based RL stage further discourages filler or incorrect disclosures. This should also bolster confidence in the OOD results on GPQA-Diamond. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Experiments): The abstract asserts clear Pareto improvements across architectures and benchmarks but supplies no numerical deltas, baseline comparisons, ablation results, or error bars. Without these details it is impossible to judge the magnitude or statistical reliability of the claimed gains; the central empirical claim therefore rests on an unverified summary.

Authors: The abstract provides a concise qualitative summary of the Pareto improvements to respect length constraints. Quantitative details—including specific accuracy gains and content-latency reductions, comparisons against baselines such as standard generation and early-commitment variants, ablation results on the SFT and RL stages, and performance across the two Qwen3 models—are presented in §5 along with the associated figures and tables. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to include key numerical highlights drawn from the experiments (e.g., observed deltas on AIME25 and GPQA-Diamond). We will also ensure §5 more prominently displays deltas, baseline results, ablations, and any run-to-run variability measures in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes constructing entailment-aligned trajectories via prefix matching, followed by SFT and RL training, then reports empirical accuracy-latency improvements on AIME25 and GPQA-Diamond. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or method summary. The training procedure and benchmark evaluations remain independent of each other; any concerns about entailment verification pertain to methodological correctness rather than circular reduction of claims to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that prefix-matching produces valid entailment pairs and that the resulting policy can be optimized without introducing new biases. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Prefix matching between answer and reasoning segments produces trajectories that are logically supportive rather than merely correlated.
Invoked when constructing the training data for SFT.
standard math Standard autoregressive generation can be extended to interleave private reasoning tokens without breaking the model's next-token prediction capability.
Implicit in the claim that SxS works inside existing LLM architectures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1413 out tokens · 51129 ms · 2026-05-08T18:34:46.411456+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

min_ϕ E_τ [ L_task(a_{1:T}, y*) + λ L_lat(g(τ)) ]
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

S_i ≜ −(ℓ_i − μ_ℓ)/σ_ℓ · 1{g_i=1} − S_min · 1{g_i=0}; QP min Σ(R_i−S_i)^2 s.t. correctness margin
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction (umbrella) reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Across two Qwen3 architectures … SxS improves accuracy–content-latency Pareto trade-offs under token-level proxies (e.g., inter-update waiting).

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

emnlp-main.1236/

URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. emnlp-main.1236/. Barez, F., Wu, T.-Y ., Arcuschin, I., Lan, M., Wang, V ., Siegel, N., Collignon, N., Neo, C., Lee, I., Paren, A., et al. Chain-of-thought is not explainability.Preprint, alphaXiv, pp. v1, 2025. Cao, J., Zhang, X., Li, R., Wei, J., Li, C., Joty, S., and Carenini, G. Multi2: Multi-agent test-time scalable...

work page doi:10.1109/tits.2025.3581858 2025
[2]

OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models

URL https://storage.googleapis. com/deepmind-media/gemini/gemini_v2_ 5_report.pdf. Google. Guha, E., Marten, R., Keh, S., Raoof, N., Smyrnis, G., Bansal, H., Nezhurina, M., Mercat, J., Vu, T., Sprague, Z., Suvarna, A., Feuer, B., Chen, L., Khan, Z., Frankel, E., Grover, S., Choi, C., Muennighoff, N., Su, S., Zhao, W., Yang, J., Pimpalgaonkar, S., Sharma, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

2410.08391 , archivePrefix=

URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=kHB5Te5IWm. Horton, M., Cao, Q., Sun, C., Jin, Y ., Mehta, S., Rastegari, M., and Nabi, M. Kv prediction for improved time to first token.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08391, 2024. Hu, M., Ma, C., Li, W., Xu, W., Wu, J., Hu, J., Li, T., Zhuang, G., Liu, J., Lu, Y ., et al. A survey of scientific large language models: From...

work page arXiv 2024
[5]

ISBN 979-8-89176-332-6

URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. emnlp-main.504/. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Self-consistency im- proves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E. H., Le, Q., and Zhou, D....

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main 2025
[6]

Smith, Edoardo M

URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. emnlp-main.726/. Wu, T.-H., Miroyan, M., Chan, D. M., Darrell, T., Norouzi, N., and Gonzalez, J. E. Are large reasoning models interruptible?arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11713, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11713. Xie, R., Qiu, D., Gopinath, D., Lin, D., Sun, Y ., Wang, C., Potdar, S., and Dhingra, B. Interleaved reas...

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025
[7]

Efficient rl training for reasoning models via length-aware optimization

URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=2a36EMSSTp. Yuan, D., Xie, T., Huang, S., Gong, Z., Zhang, H., Luo, C., Wei, F., and Zhao, D. Efficient rl training for reason- ing models via length-aware optimization, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12284. Zhang, X., Cao, J., Wei, J., You, C., and Ding, D. Why does your cot prompt (not) work? theoretical analys...

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

For a reasoning trace split into segments , we simultaneously construct independent prompts

Parallel Prefix ChecksInstead of waiting for to be determined before calculating , we launch concurrent entailment checks for every cumulative prefix of the reasoning trace. For a reasoning trace split into segments , we simultaneously construct independent prompts. The -th prompt contains the reasoning context and thefullsolution set , asking the model t...
[9]

However, independent LLM calls may produce noisy, non-monotonic results (e.g., but )

Monotonicity EnforcementTheoretically, entailment is monotonic: if reasoning entails answer prefix , then extended reasoning must entail at least . However, independent LLM calls may produce noisy, non-monotonic results (e.g., but ). We enforce monotonicity during post-processing. Let be the raw counts returned by the model. We compute the finalized bound...
[10]

If a task for step returns complete coverage (i.e., ), we immediately cancel all pending tasks for indices

Aggressive CancellationTo save computational resources, we implement an early-stopping heuristic. If a task for step returns complete coverage (i.e., ), we immediately cancel all pending tasks for indices . Due to the monotonicity principle, any reasoning step following full coverage must also imply full coverage. We synthetically assign for all cancelled...
[11]

Preference Alignment:The rewards should reflect a preference for shorter maximum reasoning block lengths (higher interleaving granularity)
[12]

substantive

Correctness Constraint:The reward structure must strictly separate correct answers from incorrect ones, ensuring that any correct rollout yields a higher reward than the average (thus a positive advantage in GRPO), and any incorrect rollout yields a lower reward than the average (thus a negative advantage in GRPO). C.1. Data Preprocessing Let yi be the mo...

2022