Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

TrimR: Verifier-based Training-Free Thinking Compression for Efficient Test-Time Scaling

T0 review · 4 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 A lightweight verifier watches the thought stream of a large reasoning model and stops generation as soon as two consecutive thoughts give the same answer, cutting runtime by up to 70% with negligible accuracy loss.

desk verdict Solid engineering paper with real, consistent efficiency gains; the accuracy claims are slightly oversold and the evaluation lacks error bars, but the core idea is sound and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17155 v2 pith:7WF6YZUQ submitted 2025-05-22 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Weizhe Lin , Xing Li , Zhiyuan Yang , Xiaojin Fu , Hui-Ling Zhen , Yaoyuan Wang , Xianzhi Yu , Wulong Liu
show 2 more authors
Xiaosong Li Mingxuan Yuan
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords largereasoningmodelschain-of-thoughtthinkingcompressionverifier-basedearlystoppingtraining-freeoverthinkingunderthinkingtest-timescaling
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

Large reasoning models are expensive because they generate long chains of visible thought, and much of that thinking is redundant: the model re-verifies a conclusion it already reached or retreads failed paths on problems it cannot solve. TrimR's claim is that a small, pretrained, instruction-tuned verifier can watch those thoughts as they are produced and decide, in real time, that further thinking will not change the answer. It does so by checking two simple binary questions on successive short thought segments---does this segment contain an answer, and are two consecutive answers equivalent?---and stopping the model with a prompt once the same answer appears twice in a row. On MATH500, AIME 2024/2025, and GPQA Diamond, the paper reports runtime reductions up to 70% and token reductions up to 46% across four large reasoning models, with accuracy essentially unchanged and in some cases improved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the thought-answer convergence test: a two-stage verifier check with answer-existence prompt $p_1$ and answer-equivalence prompt $p_2$ on consecutive short thought segments. Reducing redundancy detection to binary classification is what lets a 3B-7B pretrained instruction-tuned model serve as the verifier instead of a process or outcome reward model, and limiting inputs to 200-400 tokens keeps verification overhead small. Algorithm 1 implements the stopping rule: after $M$ consecutive equivalent answer-bearing thoughts (default $M=2$), the reasoning model is prompted to conclude; Algorithm 2 triggers if no convergence occurs within $R_{thres}$ percent of the token budget and $N_{thres}$ reasoning rounds. The gentle and forceful prompts, plus the rolling-hash repetition detector, are the actuators that translate verifier decisions into early termination.

What would settle it

Run TrimR with M=2 on a purpose-built set of problems where the correct answer appears early but the model then enters a long doubt-and-revise phase and ultimately changes to a different correct answer. If accuracy on that set falls materially below full-length decoding---by more than the small regressions reported on standard benchmarks---the convergence heuristic is falsified; a sweep over M=1,2,3 that shows accuracy rising sharply with M would confirm the failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that overthinking and underthinking can be detected online from the equivalence of intermediate thought answers, with no fine-tuning of either the reasoning model or the verifier. Reasoning is segmented into sub-thoughts at reflection markers such as 'Wait' and 'Alternatively'; the last few sentences of each segment become candidate thought answers. A lightweight verifier treats answer detection and answer equivalence as two binary classification prompts, avoiding the instability and cost of full-sequence reward-model scoring. When two consecutive answer-bearing thoughts are judged equivalent, the system injects a gentle conclusion prompt; when no consistent solution appears within a preset token-and-round budget, it injects a forceful stop prompt; a rolling-hash detector also truncates repetitive loops. The paper frames this as early stopping in language space, and its experiments show the savings come mostly from truncating the long tail of generated tokens.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is that two consecutive thought segments containing equivalent answers reliably mean the model has converged, so stopping at that point will not discard a chain that would later replace the answer with a better one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Runtime drops by up to 70% and generated tokens by up to 46% under large-batch serving, with accuracy within roughly 2% of the untrimmed model and sometimes higher.
  • Because the method is training-free and prompt-based, it can be bolted onto existing serving stacks without modifying the reasoning model's weights or the verifier's weights.
  • Overthinking compression alone gives most of the gains on models that self-verify heavily; underthinking compression and repetition truncation add another layer for weaker or quantized models.
  • The method also composes with best-of-N sampling, cutting runtime and tokens at near-constant accuracy, suggesting it can be layered onto other test-time scaling schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The convergence heuristic likely has a difficulty-dependent sweet spot: if verifier confidence were used instead of a hard M=2 count, easier problems could be stopped even earlier and harder problems allowed more margin--this is not tested in the paper.
  • The same answer-existence and equivalence signals could be repurposed as a progress meter for other inference-time strategies such as deciding when to restart a search or switch branches, not just when to stop.
  • A direct stress test of the assumption is a 'revised-answer' suite: problems where a plausible early answer is later corrected; the method's accuracy on such a suite would reveal how often M=2 truncation discards a beneficial correction.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TrimR, a training-free framework that compresses the chain-of-thought (CoT) of large reasoning models (LRMs) during inference. A lightweight instruction-tuned verifier inspects sub-thoughts delimited by reflection tokens, checks whether a thought contains a candidate solution, and compares consecutive solution-bearing thoughts for semantic equivalence. After M consecutive equivalent answers (M=2 by default), the verifier injects a stop-prompt to terminate reasoning early. The method also includes underthinking compression that stops reasoning when a token/round budget is exhausted without convergence, a rolling-hash repetition detector, and an asynchronous system (T3CS) integrated with vLLM on Ascend NPUs. Experiments on MATH500, AIME24, AIME25, and GPQA Diamond across four LRMs report runtime reductions up to 70%, token reductions up to about 46%, and mostly small accuracy changes, along with ablations and verifier-accuracy measurements.

Significance. If the accuracy-preservation claim holds, TrimR is practically significant: it is training-free, non-invasive, uses only a compact verifier, and is designed for production batch serving. The efficiency gains are consistently reported across multiple models and benchmarks, and the paper includes useful ablations, a verifier-accuracy study on manually annotated chain pairs, and an asynchronous system design. The main weakness is that the central claim of 'negligible accuracy impact' is under-supported: several table entries contradict the paper's own summary, the convergence heuristic is never validated against the untrimmed counterfactual, and threshold calibration is performed on a single benchmark without cross-benchmark sensitivity analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Table 2] The abstract and Sec. 4.2 state that accuracy impact is 'negligible' or that regressions are 'all under 2%', but Table 2 reports Pangu Pro MoE accuracy drops of -3.3% on AIME24 and AIME25 and -5.0% on AIME24 duplicated eight times. These numbers contradict the paper's own summary. The authors should either revise the central claim or provide an explanation for these larger regressions (e.g., variance across duplicate runs or a difficulty-dependent failure mode).
  2. [Algorithm 1, Sec. 3.2, Table 4] The early-stop criterion assumes that M consecutive verifier-judged equivalent intermediate answers imply the reasoning has converged and that no later correction would occur. The paper never validates this counterfactual directly: Table 4 measures verifier agreement against manual chain-pair annotations (87.87%), not whether the truncated final answer equals the answer the untrimmed model would have produced. A run that stops after two equivalent but incorrect intermediate answers could freeze an error that a longer run would have corrected. Please add per-case truncated-versus-full comparisons, or an explicit error analysis showing that early stops rarely alter the final answer.
  3. [Fig. 4, Sec. 4.3] The thresholds M=2, Rthres=50%, and Nthres=20 are calibrated only on AIME24 with QwQ-32B and then applied to MATH500, AIME25, GPQA, and other models without cross-benchmark sensitivity analysis. In particular, M=2 has no ablation at all. If the convergence heuristic degrades on harder or out-of-distribution problems, the accuracy cost could be larger than the reported aggregate numbers. Please provide sensitivity results for M and for at least one other benchmark to justify the transfer of these hand-set thresholds.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Tables 1 and 2] All main results appear to come from a single run, with no error bars or repeated trials. Given that MATH500 has 500 questions, GPQA has 198, and AIME has only 30 questions (duplicated for throughput), the accuracy differences of 1-5% may be within run-to-run noise, especially for the Pangu Pro MoE regressions in Table 2. Please report multiple runs or variance estimates, at least for the configurations showing the largest regressions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2 (Appendix A)] The condition 't > Rthres% · M' is not meaningful as written: Rthres is a percentage, M is the repeat threshold, and no explicit total token budget variable is defined. Please state the intended token-budget condition clearly.
  2. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains an unmatched closing brace: 'Fv(p2(s∗ i, s∗ i+1)}' should read 'Fv(p2(s∗ i, s∗ i+1))'.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] Nsend is used in the configuration description ('Nsend=50') but is only defined informally in Sec. 3.6; please define it in the notation or setup section.
  4. [Table 5] Table 5 uses the header 'TPS' while the rest of the paper uses 'TPR' for time per request. Please clarify which metric is intended and use consistent notation.
  5. [Table 2] The model name is spelled 'Pangu Pro MOE' in Table 2 but 'Pangu Pro MoE' elsewhere; please standardize the capitalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TrimR's runtime and accuracy results are independent empirical measurements, not consequences of a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction.

full rationale

The central claim—that verifier-based early termination reduces runtime while preserving accuracy—is supported by end-to-end measurements on four benchmarks and four LRMs. Algorithm 1's stopping rule (count of M consecutive verifier-judged equivalent thought answers, with M=2) is a heuristic, and the underthinking thresholds (Rthres=50%, Nthres=20) are hand-set and calibrated on AIME24 in Fig. 4, but the reported accuracy and runtime are observed outcomes of the full system, not quantities that the thresholds define or force. The verifier equivalence judgments in Eqs. (1)-(2) are used as detection signals; the final accuracy is scored independently with the Qwen2.5 math evaluation tool on the LRM's emitted answer. The Pangu models and Pangu-7B verifier come from the authors' organization, but they are evaluated empirically (Table 4) rather than invoked as load-bearing citations; no uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is imported to justify the stopping rule. Benchmark-threshold overlap (AIME24 used both for calibration and in main results) is a methodological leakage concern, not a circularity by construction. Hence no circular step meets the required evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism depends on several heuristic thresholds and behavioral assumptions about both the verifier and the reasoning model. The thresholds M, Rthres, Nthres are tuned on benchmark data or set by hand, while the segmentation and prompt-compliance assumptions are not independently verified beyond the reported experiments.

free parameters (5)
  • repeat threshold M = 2
    Number of consecutive equivalent intermediate answers that triggers overthinking termination; set in Sec 4.1 configs, not derived.
  • Rthres = 50%
    Token budget percentage for underthinking flag; calibrated on AIME24 in Figure 4 and adopted as default.
  • Nthres = 20
    Minimum number of reasoning rounds before underthinking can be flagged; calibrated on AIME24 in Figure 4.
  • Nsend = 50
    Number of decoding steps between verifier checks in the async system; set in Sec 4.1.
  • Nsent = unspecified
    Number of trailing sentences extracted as intermediate answer; used in Sec 3.1 but no value is given, making replication harder.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Reflection tokens such as 'Wait' and 'Alternatively' reliably segment reasoning into distinct thoughts.
    The segmentation in Sec 3.1 relies on these tokens as boundaries; if they are noisy, the verifier receives poorly formed inputs.
  • domain assumption M consecutive equivalent intermediate answers imply reasoning convergence.
    Algorithm 1 triggers early stop after M repeats; this is a heuristic about when thinking is done.
  • domain assumption The verifier's binary judgments are accurate enough for safe truncation.
    The paper measures 87.87% verifier accuracy and asserts occasional errors have negligible downstream impact (Sec 4.3).
  • domain assumption The LRM will comply with the gentle or forceful guidance prompts and stop thinking when instructed.
    The method assumes prompt-based control works reliably across models and tasks (Sec 3.5).
  • domain assumption A 30K token output cap is an appropriate production proxy.
    Experiments cap output at 30K tokens and assume extending to 128K yields marginal gains, shaping the runtime results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TrimR: Verifier-based Training-Free Thinking Compression for Efficient Test-Time Scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WF6YZUQ

@misc{pith2026250517155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TrimR: Verifier-based Training-Free Thinking Compression for Efficient Test-Time Scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WF6YZUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17155}
}
read the original abstract

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate exceptional capability in tackling complex mathematical, logical, and coding tasks by leveraging extended Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Test-time scaling methods, such as prolonging CoT with explicit token-level exploration, can push LRMs' accuracy boundaries, but they incur significant decoding overhead. A key inefficiency source is LRMs often generate redundant thinking CoTs, which demonstrate clear structured overthinking and underthinking patterns. Inspired by human cognitive reasoning processes and numerical optimization theories, we propose TrimR, a verifier-based, training-free, efficient framework for dynamic CoT compression to trim reasoning and enhance test-time scaling, explicitly tailored for production-level deployment. Our method employs a lightweight, pretrained, instruction-tuned verifier to detect and truncate redundant intermediate thoughts of LRMs without any LRM or verifier fine-tuning. We present both the core algorithm and asynchronous online system engineered for high-throughput industrial applications. Empirical evaluations on Ascend NPUs and vLLM show that our framework delivers substantial gains in inference efficiency under large-batch workloads. In particular, on the four MATH500, AIME24, AIME25, and GPQA benchmarks, the reasoning runtime of Pangu Pro MoE, Pangu-R-38B, QwQ-32B, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B is improved by up to 70% with negligible impact on accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The TrimR thinking compression framework for trimming reasoning. (1) CoTs are divided into sub-thoughts with reflection tokens in Sec. 3.1; (2a) Over/underthinking detection through answer convergence analysis in Sec. 3.2, 3.3 (2b) repetition truncation in Sec. 3.4; (3) By simplifying redundant detection as the binary answer existence and equivalence classification with prompts p1 and p2 in Appendix E, 7B instructio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between occurrence, accuracy, and the number of generated thoughts/tokens of QwQ-32B on MATH500 [9] and AIME24 [1]. For hard questions, QwQ can spin out up to 140 lengthy yet incorrect thoughts—indicating a need for underthinking compression. For easier questions, QwQ delivers brief, highly accurate answers—yet there’s still room to make them even more concise by overthinking compression. 1 Introduction … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System design for the Test-Time Thinking Compression System (T3CS). The figure shows three sequences that are flagged as (1) overthinking; (2) underthinking; and (3) repetitive generation. The inference engine streams updates through the Message Controller into the external T3CS process, which issues asyn￾chronous API calls to a lightweight verifier. The verifier detokenizes each output into reasoning chains, assess… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of token- and round-budget thresholds on token count and accuracy (QwQ-32B on AIME24). Although performance is largely insensitive to Rthres and Nthres, accuracy degrades when Rthres < 40%. Setting Rthres = 50% and Nthres = 20 achieves an optimal trade-off betwe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of occurrence and accuracy of decoding length and scatter plot of the number of thoughts and generated tokens of of Deepseek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (R1Q-32B) on MATH500 and AIME24 datasets C Decoding throughput/latency over decoding length Deploying LRMs in larg…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Throughput reduction due to increasing length of QwQ-32B. D Full List of Reflection Tokens We utilize the following markers as reflection tokens to partition model reasoning into sub-thoughts: “\n\nBut”, “\n\nWait”, “\n\nHowever”, “\n\nHmm”, “\n\nLet me verify this”, a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of tokens and reasoning rounds with and without TrimR (QwQ-32B on MATH500). The original distribution is indicated by the black curve, while the unchanged, overthinking, and underthinking samples are shown as stacked bars. After applying dynamic think …

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. Scaling Up, Speeding Up: A Benchmark of Speculative Decoding for Efficient LLM Test-Time Scaling

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    N-gram based speculative decoding methods, especially SAM and hybrid SAM[EAGLE-3], achieve strong speedups in LLM test-time scaling by exploiting repetitive reasoning patterns.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    American invitational mathematics examination (aime), 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    American invitational mathematics examination (aime), 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Training language models to reason efficiently, 2025

    Daman Arora and Andrea Zanette. Training language models to reason efficiently, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2502.04463, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms

    Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Jianhui Pang, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Qiuzhi Liu, Mengfei Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, et al. Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21187, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Efficiently serving llm reasoning programs with certaindex

    Yichao Fu, Junda Chen, Siqi Zhu, Zheyu Fu, Zhongdongming Dai, Aurick Qiao, and Hao Zhang. Efficiently serving llm reasoning programs with certaindex. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20993, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Token-budget-aware llm reasoning

    Tingxu Han, Zhenting Wang, Chunrong Fang, Shiyu Zhao, Shiqing Ma, and Zhenyu Chen. Token-budget-aware llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18547, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space

    Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning

    Bairu Hou, Yang Zhang, Jiabao Ji, Yujian Liu, Kaizhi Qian, Jacob Andreas, and Shiyu Chang. Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01296, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation

    Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large lan- guage model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Syste...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling

    Zijun Liu, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Shirong Ma, Chong Ruan, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Yu Wu. Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02495, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Adaptive inference-time compute: Llms can predict if they can do better, even mid-generation

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

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Deepseek-r1 thoughtology: Let’s< think> about llm reasoning

    Sara Vera Marjanovi ´c, Arkil Patel, Vaibhav Adlakha, Milad Aghajohari, Parishad BehnamGhader, Mehar Bhatia, Aditi Khandelwal, Austin Kraft, Benno Krojer, Xing Han Lù, et al. Deepseek-r1 thoughtology: Let’s< think> about llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07128, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Self-training elicits concise reasoning in large language models

    Tergel Munkhbat, Namgyu Ho, Seo Hyun Kim, Yongjin Yang, Yujin Kim, and Se-Young Yun. Self-training elicits concise reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20122, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Openai o1 system card, December 2024

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card, December 2024. 11

    2024

  11. [19]

    Specrea- son: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning

    Rui Pan, Yinwei Dai, Zhihao Zhang, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Jia, and Ravi Netravali. Specrea- son: Fast and accurate inference-time compute via speculative reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07891, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Fast best-of-n decoding via speculative rejection

    Hanshi Sun, Momin Haider, Ruiqi Zhang, Huitao Yang, Jiahao Qiu, Ming Yin, Mengdi Wang, Peter Bartlett, and Andrea Zanette. Fast best-of-n decoding via speculative rejection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20290, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pangu pro moe: Mixture of grouped experts for efficient sparsity, 2025

    Yehui Tang, Xiaosong Li, Fangcheng Liu, Wei Guo, Hang Zhou, Yaoyuan Wang, Kai Han, Xianzhi Yu, Jinpeng Li, Hui Zang, Fei Mi, Xiaojun Meng, Zhicheng Liu, Hanting Chen, Binfan Zheng, Can Chen, Youliang Yan, Ruiming Tang, Peifeng Qin, Xinghao Chen, Dacheng Tao, and Yunhe Wang. Pa...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Kimi Team, A Du, B Gao, B Xing, C Jiang, C Chen, C Li, C Xiao, C Du, C Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Efficient reasoning for llms through speculative chain-of-thought

    Jikai Wang, Juntao Li, Lijun Wu, and Min Zhang. Efficient reasoning for llms through speculative chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19095, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sampling-efficient test-time scaling: Self-estimating the best-of-n sampling in early decoding

    Yiming Wang, Pei Zhang, Siyuan Huang, Baosong Yang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Fei Huang, and Rui Wang. Sampling-efficient test-time scaling: Self-estimating the best-of-n sampling in early decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01422, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for llm problem-solving

    Yangzhen Wu, Zhiqing Sun, Shanda Li, Sean Welleck, and Yiming Yang. Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for llm problem-solving. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Enhancing llm reasoning via critique models with test-time and training-time supervision

    Zhiheng Xi, Dingwen Yang, Jixuan Huang, Jiafu Tang, Guanyu Li, Yiwen Ding, Wei He, Boyang Hong, Shihan Do, Wenyu Zhan, et al. Enhancing llm reasoning via critique models with test-time and training-time supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16579, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in llms

    Heming Xia, Yongqi Li, Chak Tou Leong, Wenjie Wang, and Wenjie Li. Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12067, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less

    Silei Xu, Wenhao Xie, Lingxiao Zhao, and Pengcheng He. Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18600, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Inftythink: Breaking the length limits of long-context reasoning in large language models

    Yuchen Yan, Yongliang Shen, Yang Liu, Jin Jiang, Mengdi Zhang, Jian Shao, and Yueting Zhuang. Inftythink: Breaking the length limits of long-context reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06692, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Qwen2 technical report

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dynamic early exit in reasoning models

    Chenxu Yang, Qingyi Si, Yongjie Duan, Zheliang Zhu, Chenyu Zhu, Zheng Lin, Li Cao, and Weiping Wang. Dynamic early exit in reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15895, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Distilling system 2 into system 1

    Ping Yu, Jing Xu, Jason Weston, and Ilia Kulikov. Distilling system 2 into system 1. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06023, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lightthinker: Thinking step-by-step compression

    Jintian Zhang, Yuqi Zhu, Mengshu Sun, Yujie Luo, Shuofei Qiao, Lun Du, Da Zheng, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Lightthinker: Thinking step-by-step compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15589, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    \n\nBut”, “\n\nWait

    Lianmin Zheng, Liangsheng Yin, Zhiqiang Xie, Chuyue Livia Sun, Jeff Huang, Cody Hao Yu, Shiyi Cao, Christos Kozyrakis, Ion Stoica, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Sglang: Efficient execution of structured language model programs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37...

    2024

Pith tools

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