CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Rethinking Thinking Tokens: LLMs as Improvement Operators

Open access
Madaan, Lovish, Didolkar, Aniket, Gururangan, Suchin, Quan, John, Silva, Ruan, Salakhutdinov, Ruslan, Zaheer, Manzil, Arora, Sanjeev +1 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2510.01123arXiv 2510.01123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reasoning training incentivizes LLMs to produce long chains of thought (long CoT), which among other things, allows them to explore solution strategies with self-checking. This results in higher accuracy, but inflates context length, token/compute cost, and answer latency. We ask: Can current models leverage their metacognition to provide other combinations on this Pareto frontier, e.g., better accuracy with lower context length and/or latency? Abstractly, we view the model as an improvement operator on its own "thoughts" with a continuum of possible strategies. We identify an interesting inference family Parallel-Distill-Refine (PDR), which performs the following: (i) generate diverse drafts in parallel; (ii) distill them into a bounded, textual workspace; and (iii) refine conditioned on this workspace, producing an output that seeds the next round. Importantly, context length (hence compute cost) is controllable via degree of parallelism, and is no longer conflated with the total number of generated tokens. We report PDR instantiations of current models that give better accuracy than long CoT while incurring lower latency. Setting degree of parallelism to 1 yields an interesting subcase, Sequential Refinement (SR) (iteratively improve a single candidate answer) which provides performance superior to long CoT. Success of such model orchestrations raises the question whether further training could shift the Pareto frontier. To this end, we train an 8B thinking model with Reinforcement Learning (RL) to make it consistent with PDR as the inference method. On math tasks with verifiable answers, iterative pipelines surpass single-pass baselines at matched sequential budgets, with PDR delivering the largest gains (e.g., +11% on AIME 2024 and +9% on AIME 2025).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.01123

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PDR studies inference as an iterative improvement process.

    “PDR (Madaan et al., 2025) study inference as an iterative improvement process.”

    From GitSwarm: Decentralized Compounding Inference (2026) · cites this paper as Madaan et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “We train an 8B dense model similar to Llama-3 style architecture (Dubey et al., 2024).”
    Self-citation

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Jason Ai, Sam Altman, Andy Applebaum, Edwin Arbus, Rahul K Arora, Yu Bai, Bowen Baker, Haiming Bao, et al. gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925, 2025. · arXiv
  2. Thomas Anthony, Zheng Tian, and David Barber. Thinking fast and slow with deep learning and tree search. In NeurIPS, 2017.
  3. Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. Computational Complexity. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  4. Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pp. 17682-17690, 2024.
  5. Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025. · arXiv
  6. Hal Daumé III and John Langford. Search-based structured prediction. In ICML, 2006.
  7. Aniket Didolkar, Nicolas Ballas, Sanjeev Arora, and Anirudh Goyal. Metacognitive reuse: Turning recurring llm reasoning into concise behaviors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13237, 2025. · arXiv
  8. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023a. · arXiv
  9. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023b.
  10. Yichao Fu, Xuewei Wang, Yuandong Tian, and Jiawei Zhao. Deep think with confidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15260, 2025. · arXiv
  11. Soumya Suvra Ghosal, Souradip Chakraborty, Avinash Reddy, Yifu Lu, Mengdi Wang, Dinesh Manocha, Furong Huang, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, and Amrit Singh Bedi. Does thinking more always help? understanding test-time scaling in reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04210, 2025. · arXiv
  12. Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738, 2023. · arXiv
  13. Anirudh Goyal, Aniket Didolkar, Alex Lamb, Kartikeya Badola, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nasim Rahaman, Jonathan Binas, Charles Blundell, Michael Mozer, and Yoshua Bengio. Coordination among neural modules through a shared global workspace. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022. arXiv:2103.01197. · arXiv
  14. 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
  15. 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. · arXiv
  16. Wenyi Hong, Wenmeng Yu, Xiaotao Gu, Guo Wang, Guobing Gan, Haomiao Tang, Jiale Cheng, Ji Qi, Junhui Ji, Lihang Pan, et al. Glm-4.1 v-thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning. arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv-2507, 2025.
  17. Zhenyu Hou, Ziniu Hu, Yujiang Li, Rui Lu, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. Treerl: Llm reinforcement learning with on-policy tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11902, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11902. · arXiv
  18. Geoffrey Irving, Paul Christiano, and Dario Amodei. Ai safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899, 2018. · arXiv
  19. Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024. · arXiv
  20. Minqi Jiang, Andrei Lupu, and Yoram Bachrach. Bootstrapping task spaces for self-improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04575, 2025. · arXiv
  21. Aonian Li, Bangwei Gong, Bo Yang, Boji Shan, Chang Liu, Cheng Zhu, Chunhao Zhang, Congchao Guo, Da Chen, Dong Li, et al. Minimax-01: Scaling foundation models with lightning attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08313, 2025. · arXiv
  22. Licheng Liu, Zihan Wang, Linjie Li, Chenwei Xu, Yiping Lu, Han Liu, Avirup Sil, and Manling Li. A simple "try again" can elicit multi-turn llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14295, 2025a. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14295. · DOI
  23. Mingjie Liu, Shizhe Diao, Ximing Lu, Jian Hu, Xin Dong, Yejin Choi, Jan Kautz, and Yi Dong. Prorl: Prolonged reinforcement learning expands reasoning boundaries in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24864, 2025b. · arXiv
  24. Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03172, 2023. · arXiv
  25. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. · arXiv
  26. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46534-46594, 2023.
  27. Jiayi Pan, Xiuyu Li, Long Lian, Charlie Snell, Yifei Zhou, Adam Yala, Trevor Darrell, Kurt Keutzer, and Alane Suhr. Learning adaptive parallel reasoning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15466, 2025. · arXiv
  28. Stéphane Ross, Geoffrey Gordon, and J. Andrew Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In AISTATS, 2011.
  29. ByteDance Seed, Jiaze Chen, Tiantian Fan, Xin Liu, Lingjun Liu, Zhiqi Lin, Mingxuan Wang, Chengyi Wang, Xiangpeng Wei, Wenyuan Xu, et al. Seed1. 5-thinking: Advancing superb reasoning models with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13914, 2025. · arXiv
  30. Murray Shanahan. A cognitive architecture that combines internal simulation with a global workspace. Consciousness and cognition, 15(2):433-449, 2006.
  31. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. · arXiv
  32. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Beck Labash, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2303.11366, 1, 2023.
  33. David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J. Maddison, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587):484-489, 2016.
  34. David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, et al. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv:1712.01815, 2017. · arXiv
  35. Junlin Wang, Siddhartha Jain, Dejiao Zhang, Baishakhi Ray, Varun Kumar, and Ben Athiwaratkun. Reasoning in token economies: budget-aware evaluation of llm reasoning strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06461, 2024. · arXiv
  36. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2203.11171.
  37. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  38. Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning, 8(3):229-256, 1992.
  39. Xixi Wu, Kuan Li, Yida Zhao, Liwen Zhang, Litu Ou, Huifeng Yin, Zhongwang Zhang, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Minhao Cheng, Shuai Wang, Hong Cheng, and Jingren Zhou. Resum: Unlocking long-horizon search intelligence via context summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13313, 2025. · arXiv
  40. Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, Wenyue Zheng, Min-Yen Kan, Timothy P Lillicrap, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Michael Shieh. Monte carlo tree search boosts reasoning via iterative preference learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00451, 2024. · arXiv
  41. An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. · arXiv
  42. Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Tianjun Zhang, Shiyi Cao, Minkai Xu, Wentao Zhang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Bin Cui. Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113519-113544, 2024.
  43. Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809-11822, 2023.
  44. Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Weinan Dai, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025. · arXiv
  45. Jenny Zhang, Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, Robert Lange, and Jeff Clune. Darwin godel machine: Open-ended evolution of self-improving agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22954, 2025. · arXiv
  46. Wenting Zhao, Pranjal Aggarwal, Swarnadeep Saha, Asli Celikyilmaz, Jason Weston, and Ilia Kulikov. The majority is not always right: Rl training for solution aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06870, 2025. · arXiv
  47. Tong Zheng, Hongming Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Xiaoyang Wang, Runpeng Dai, Rui Liu, Huiwen Bao, Chengsong Huang, Heng Huang, and Dong Yu. Parallel-r1: Towards parallel thinking via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07980, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07980. · DOI
  48. Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022. 3/32 correct drafts points to a verification/refinement gap. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madaan, L., Didolkar, A., Gururangan, S., Quan, J., Silva, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Zaheer, M., Arora, S., & Goyal, A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
  • Anthropic (United States) (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2510.01123
arXiv
2510.01123
OpenAlex
W4414810659
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
metacognition, inference latency, Pareto front, mathematical problem solving, self-checking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review