ThinkRetrieve is proposed, a test-time scaling framework that augments the reasoning traces of LRMs with dynamically retrieved solved examples at each reasoning step, providing the model with guidance on how to reason rather than merely what facts are relevant.
Abstract
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by allocating additional inference-time compute to generate extended chain-of-thought reasoning. However, recent studies reveal that sequential test-time scaling often yields diminishing or even negative returns, as longer traces exhibit increased uncertainty, error compounding, and drift from the original problem. We propose ThinkRetrieve, a test-time scaling framework that augments the reasoning traces of LRMs with dynamically retrieved solved examples at each reasoning step. Given an external corpus of problems paired with step-by-step solutions, ThinkRetrieve retrieves relevant exemplars at each intermediate step and injects them directly into the thinking trace, providing the model with guidance on how to reason rather than merely what facts are relevant. Experiments across five reasoning models (1.5B--8B parameters) on GSM-8K, MATH-500, AIME 2025, and SciQ demonstrate that ThinkRetrieve consistently improves accuracy over standard test-time scaling, with relative gains of up to $60\%$ on AIME 2025.
Large language models often rely on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to solve complex tasks, but verbose reasoning traces introduce substantial inference overhead. CoT compression shortens generation, yet aggressive compression may disrupt logical coherence and degrade performance. We formalize this trade-off as the Context-Generation Substitution Law, where explicit reasoning context substitutes for part of decode-time generation. Based on this principle, we propose Memory-Augmented Compression, a training-free framework that constructs reusable reasoning memories from historical traces and retrieves them as prefill-side scaffolds. Rather than using raw demonstrations, these memories summarize reusable reasoning patterns, key constraints, and critical operations to compensate for information lost during compression. Experiments show that Memory consistently improves prompt-based Chain-of-Draft (CoD) compression across mathematical reasoning, complex reasoning, and science question answering tasks, yielding accuracy gains of 21.4, 28.0, 29.5, and 6.61 points over CoD on GSM8K, MATH, BBH, and MMLU-Sci, while achieving a 1.14-1.49x latency speedup latency speedup over standard CoT. Memory is also compatible with token-level, reasoning-trace-level, and inference-state compression mechanisms.
Simeng Zhang, Yilong Chen, Wenyuan Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Large language models often reason at length before answering, increasing cost and latency. Prompts and trained settings can shorten this reasoning, but a shorter trace may only show that the model stopped sooner. Here, we evaluate paired runs of the same question at matched reasoning horizons across 198 GPQA Diamond and 500 MMLU-Pro questions. We test a numeric/concision prompt that announces a token limit for Qwen3-14B and the trained effort settings of gpt-oss-20b and -120b. The Qwen prompt shortens reasoning traces by 12-17%, while accuracy changes at matched token limits are small and mixed. A concise/early-answer instruction raises MMLU-Pro accuracy by 3.8 percentage points at 512 tokens, including +2.7 points when both runs are unfinished. Its gain at 2,048 tokens is uncertain. For gpt-oss, candidate-logit answers from completed low- and medium-effort reasoning are 14.5-26.3 points more accurate than matched-horizon high-effort answers. Most of the 512-token advantage comes from lower effort finishing earlier, while differences among unfinished runs are smaller and mixed. Wrong early answers often concentrate probability on the chosen option, so earlier stopping does not uniformly improve probability quality. In these tests, a tight deadline can favor lower effort or a concise instruction, whereas allowing high effort to finish can recover higher final accuracy. Evaluations should report correct completion before a deadline, the answer obtained when a run is stopped, differences among unfinished runs, and probability assigned to the correct answer separately.
Francesca Carlon, Vincent Ginis, A. Algaba· 0 citations
This work presents a theoretical framework that reveals how reasoning steps can amplify error through three failure modes: incorrect sub-task decomposition, incorrect sub-task solving, and incorrect final answer summarization, and introduces structured interventions that adapt CoT generation according to the identified failure types.
Haibo Jin, Peiyan Zhang, Man Luo et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 1 citation
OS-Pruner is a lightweight plug-in framework that formulates chain-of-thought pruning as an optimal stopping problem that achieves 20-60\% reduction in generation length with minimal accuracy sacrifice on diverse reasoning benchmarks and base models.
Mohammed Ehab, Aymane El Gadarri, Vivek F. Farias et al.· 0 citations
Test-time compute can substantially improve Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning performance, yet how and when additional compute helps remains poorly understood. We study Divergent-Convergent Reasoning (DCR), a simple two-phase primitive consisting of an exploration phase that generates multiple candidate solutions followed by a convergent reconciliation phase. We present three core results. First, we show that even a single reconciliation step can reliably amplify correct minority reports: across datasets, DCR often recovers the correct answer when correct exploration outputs are in the minority, a regime where majority voting fails. Second, we introduce recursive DCR, an autoregressive reconciliation system that iteratively analyzes disagreements and allocates additional test-time compute. Recursive DCR achieves higher accuracy than fixed-compute baselines-reaching 93.3% on AIME 2024 and 92.0% on AIME 2025-while using roughly 27% less compute on average, demonstrating that attentive resource allocation is superior to uniform scaling. Third, we analyze disagreement among exploration outputs via a simple, training-free dispersion metric. Dispersion reveals a structured relationship between disagreement and test-time gains: in regimes where DCR is effective, higher disagreement among exploration outputs is associated with larger accuracy improvements from reconciliation. Together, these results show that disagreement, often viewed as noise, can be systematically exploited to improve test-time reasoning and reveal emerging scaling laws for agentic LLM systems.
This work conducts a fine-grained analysis of hallucinations arising in LLM reasoning and finds that the reasoning traces are particularly prone to Context-Sensitive Factual Hallucinations: cases where the model actually has the relevant knowledge, yet makes factual errors due to contextual interference during reasoning.
Xiaomeng Hu, Jiaqi Hu, Hao Chen et al.· 0 citations