Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate superior reasoning capabilities compared to small language models (SLMs), but incur substantially higher costs. We propose COllaborative REAsoner (COREA), a system that cascades an SLM with an LLM to achieve a balance between accuracy and cost in complex reasoning tasks. COREA first attempts to answer questions using the SLM, which outputs both an answer and a verbalized confidence score. Questions with confidence below a predefined threshold are deferred to the LLM for more accurate resolution. We introduce a reinforcement learning-based training algorithm that aligns the SLM's confidence through an additional confidence calibration reward. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method jointly improves the SLM's reasoning ability and confidence calibration across diverse datasets and model backbones. Compared to using the LLM alone, COREA reduces cost by 21.5% and 16.8% on out-of-domain math and non-math datasets, respectively, with only an absolute pass@1 drop within 2%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Architecture of COREA : COREA cascades an SLM with an LLM. For each query, the SLM is prompted to generate reasoning steps, an answer, and a confidence score. LLM is invoked only when the SLM’s confidence is less than the predefined threshold. (b) Confidence calibration of the SLM: The SLM is trained using GRPO with a multi-objective reward function to improve its reasoning ability and calibrate its confidence.
System
DeepMath500
OOD Math
OOD Non-Math
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
42.7
4423
0.0
60.4
2622
0.0
45.2
2004
0.0
RLVR-SLM
57.6
2511
0.0
71.8
1928
0.0
62.4
1438
0.0
Brier-SLM
55.7
3490
0.0
72.7
2322
0.0
63.5
1708
0.0
L1-SLM*
56.6
3766
0.0
72.1
2589
0.0
64.7
1902
0.0
Table 1: Performance comparison across different systems and datasets. Pass@1, average cost per question (Avg Cost), and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. OOD Math includes Math500, GSM8K, and OlympiadBench. OOD Non-Math includes GPQA and CommonsenseQA. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
Figure 2: Results on DeepMath-500: (a) Pass@1, (b) average cost, and (c) LLM usage percentage versus confidence threshold; (d) Pass@1 versus average cost for different systems. The vertical dashed lines in (a)-(c) mark the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 (0.69).
Figure 3: Training process of Qwen2.5-7BI with different reward configurations: RLVR, Brier (RLCC with Brier score), and L1 (RLCC with L1 confidence reward) on DeepMath500, with 8 sampled answers per question.
Method
Pass@1% ↑
ECE ↓
AUROC ↑
SLM-Verb
52.8±0.9
0.45±0.01
0.50±0.01
RLVR-SLM-Verb
66.9±0.7
0.30±0.01
0.50±0.01
RLVR-SLM-AvgProb
66.9±0.7
0.28±0.01
0.64±0.01
RLVR-SLM-Probe
66.9±0.7
0.17±0.01
0.72±0.01
Router+RLVR-SLM
66.9±0.7
0.20±0.01
0.56±0.01
Brier-SLM-Verb
67.5±0.7
0.17±0.01
0.72±0.01
Table 2: Comparison of different methods on accuracy and calibration metrics, averaged across all datasets. Here, the metrics are only evaluated on the SLM.
Figure 4: Comparison of Pass@1 and ECE across several models trained with different reward configurations, averaged across all datasets. Detailed results on each dataset are provided in Appendix E .
Conf. Reward
Pass@1% ↑
ECE ↓
AUROC ↑
L1
67.8±0.7
0.12±0.01
0.72±0.01
Sample_L1
68.3±0.7
0.16±0.01
0.68±0.01
L2
67.5±0.7
0.31±0.01
0.62±0.01
Brier
67.5±0.7
0.17±0.01
0.72±0.01
KL
66.5±0.7
0.15±0.01
0.69±0.01
Sample_KL
67.1±0.7
0.11±0.01
0.74±0.01
Table 3: Comparison of different confidence reward functions on accuracy and calibration metrics, averaged across all datasets.
Rollout Size
Pass@1% ↑
ECE ↓
AUROC ↑
4
67.2±0.8
0.10±0.01
0.68±0.01
8
67.8±0.7
0.12±0.01
0.72±0.01
16
66.7±0.7
0.10±0.01
0.69±0.01
32
68.3±0.5
0.17±0.01
0.65±0.01
Table 4: Comparison of different rollout sizes with L1 confidence reward on accuracy and calibration metrics, averaged across all datasets.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Question and Response of Qwen2.5-7BI.
Figure 6: Response of Qwen2.5-7BI continued.
Figure 7: Response of RLVR-Qwen2.5-7BI.
Figure 8: Response of L1-Qwen2.5-7BI (our approach).
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
42.7
4423
0
4423
0
RLVR-SLM
57.6
2511
0
2511
0
Brier-SLM
55.7
3490
0
3490
0
L1-SLM*
56.6
3766
0
3766
0
Baseline LLM
69.0
0
14882
14882
100
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison across different systems on DeepMath500. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
54.1
3113
0
3113
0
RLVR-SLM
70.5
2125
0
2125
0
Brier-SLM
74.4
2627
0
2627
0
L1-SLM*
72.4
3020
0
3020
0
Baseline LLM
81.2
0
11499
11499
100
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison across different systems on Math500. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
81.7
1388
0
1388
0
RLVR-SLM
90.9
1348
0
1348
0
Brier-SLM
90.9
1369
0
1369
0
L1-SLM*
90.3
1487
0
1487
0
Baseline LLM
95.6
0
6073
6073
100
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison across different systems on GSM8K. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
23.4
4671
0
4671
0
RLVR-SLM
35.2
2916
0
2916
0
Brier-SLM
36.0
3960
0
3960
0
L1-SLM*
36.5
4424
0
4424
0
Baseline LLM
47.0
0
17167
17167
100
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison across different systems on OlympiadBench. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
21.6
3927
0
3927
0
RLVR-SLM
29.5
2451
0
2451
0
Brier-SLM
32.8
3282
0
3282
0
L1-SLM*
34.2
3775
0
3775
0
Baseline LLM
43.4
0
13420
13420
100
Appendix
Table 9: Performance comparison across different systems on GPQA. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
Pass@1%
SLM Cost
LLM Cost
Total Cost
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
53.9
1298
0
1298
0
RLVR-SLM
74.5
1067
0
1067
0
Brier-SLM
74.8
1130
0
1130
0
L1-SLM*
75.9
1215
0
1215
0
Baseline LLM
81.7
0
5229
5229
100
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison across different systems on CommonsenseQA. Pass@1, SLM Cost per question, LLM Cost per question, Total Cost per question, and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. COREA (L1-SLM-Verb) utilizes L1-SLM and verbalized confidence. * indicates our method.
System
DeepMath500
OOD Math
OOD Non-Math
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Pass@1% ↑
Avg Cost ↓
LLM%
Standalone
SLM
25.8
3422
0.0
41.5
2435
0.0
42.8
1558
0.0
L1-SLM
26.5
1311
0.0
35.3
1273
0.0
35.7
449
0.0
Baseline LLM
69.0
69450
100.0
79.6
47430
100.0
71.4
34663
100.0
Collaborative
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison of 1.5B SLM + 32B LLM pairing across different systems and datasets. Pass@1, average cost per question (Avg Cost), and LLM usage percentage (LLM%) are reported. OOD Math includes Math500, GSM8K, and OlympiadBench. OOD Non-Math includes GPQA and CommonsenseQA. In all collaborative systems, the Baseline LLM’s Pass@1 serves as the confidence threshold. Values in parentheses indicate the difference from the Baseline LLM. * indicates our method.
Figure 9: Comparison of Pass@1 and ECE across several models trained with different reward configurations on DeepMath500, Math500, GSM8K, OlympiadBench, GPQA, OlympiadBench, respectively.
Method
DeepMath500
Math500
GSM8K
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
SLM
41.7±1.5
0.57±0.02
0.47±0.02
52.8±1.2
0.47±0.01
0.48±0.02
81.3±0.5
0.19±0.01
0.52±0.00
RLVR
58.2±0.8
0.40±0.01
0.49±0.01
70.6±0.8
0.28±0.01
0.50±0.01
91.0±0.3
0.07±0.00
0.49±0.01
L1
56.3±0.9
0.11±0.01
0.77±0.01
71.5±0.6
0.11±0.01
0.81±0.01
90.5±0.3
0.07±0.00
0.78±0.01
Sample_L1
58.4±0.8
0.17±0.01
0.75±0.01
73.6±0.9
0.07±0.01
0.81±0.01
91.1±0.3
0.05±0.00
0.70±0.01
L2
54.8±1.1
0.22±0.02
0.63±0.01
72.6±0.9
0.39±0.01
0.67±0.01
89.7±0.2
0.53±0.00
0.67±0.01
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of different confidence reward functions on accuracy and calibration metrics for DeepMath500, Math500, and GSM8K. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Method
OlympiadBench
GPQA
CommonsenseQA
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
SLM
23.2±1.0
0.76±0.01
0.48±0.01
21.2±1.0
0.71±0.01
0.49±0.03
54.7±0.9
0.39±0.01
0.52±0.01
RLVR
34.6±0.9
0.63±0.01
0.49±0.01
29.0±1.9
0.66±0.02
0.50±0.03
74.6±0.6
0.19±0.01
0.52±0.01
L1
36.9±1.0
0.11±0.01
0.77±0.01
34.5±1.2
0.15±0.02
0.54±0.02
75.9±0.6
0.19±0.01
0.63±0.01
Sample_L1
37.5±1.4
0.22±0.01
0.74±0.01
32.3±0.8
0.40±0.01
0.56±0.02
75.8±0.6
0.18±0.01
0.60±0.00
L2
36.5±0.5
0.10±0.00
0.60±0.01
32.2±1.6
0.04±0.01
0.54±0.02
76.9±0.9
0.28±0.01
0.60±0.01
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of different confidence reward functions on accuracy and calibration metrics for OlympiadBench, GPQA, and CommonsenseQA. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Rollout Size
DeepMath500
Math500
GSM8K
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
4
55.8±1.0
0.12±0.01
0.67±0.01
71.2±1.0
0.13±0.01
0.74±0.02
91.7±0.4
0.07±0.01
0.73±0.02
8
56.3±0.9
0.11±0.01
0.77±0.01
71.5±0.6
0.11±0.01
0.81±0.01
90.5±0.3
0.07±0.00
0.78±0.01
16
54.7±1.1
0.09±0.01
0.69±0.01
68.9±1.3
0.08±0.01
0.74±0.01
91.3±0.3
0.07±0.00
0.74±0.00
32
57.2±0.9
0.19±0.01
0.73±0.01
72.1±0.5
0.11±0.01
0.78±0.02
91.7±0.2
0.06±0.00
0.62±0.01
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of different rollout sizes with L1 confidence reward on accuracy and calibration metrics for DeepMath500, Math500, and GSM8K. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Rollout Size
OlympiadBench
GPQA
CommonsenseQA
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
Pass@1%
ECE
AUROC
4
35.2±0.9
0.07±0.01
0.63±0.02
29.0±1.1
0.20±0.01
0.56±0.02
75.4±0.9
0.11±0.01
0.69±0.01
8
36.9±1.0
0.11±0.01
0.77±0.01
34.5±1.2
0.15±0.02
0.54±0.02
75.9±0.6
0.19±0.01
0.63±0.01
16
33.3±1.0
0.08±0.01
0.69±0.01
31.7±1.2
0.24±0.01
0.55±0.02
75.6±0.5
0.09±0.01
0.66±0.01
32
34.2±0.7
0.20±0.01
0.80±0.01
34.0±1.4
0.42±0.02
0.53±0.02
77.5±0.3
0.21±0.00
0.55±0.01
Appendix
Table 15: Comparison of different rollout sizes with L1 confidence reward on accuracy and calibration metrics for OlympiadBench, GPQA, and CommonsenseQA. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed the rise of reasoning-intensive inference paradigms, where models perform explicit step-by-step reasoning before generating final answers. While such approaches improve answer quality and interpretability, they incur substantial computational overhead due to the prolonged generation sequences. In this paper, we propose Tandem, a novel collaborative framework that synergizes large and small language models (LLMs and SLMs) to achieve high-quality reasoning with significantly reduced computational cost. Specifically, the LLM serves as a strategic coordinator, efficiently generating a compact set of critical reasoning insights. These insights are then used to guide a smaller, more efficient SLM in executing the full reasoning process and delivering the final response. To balance efficiency and reliability, Tandem introduces a cost-aware termination mechanism that adaptively determines when sufficient reasoning guidance has been accumulated, enabling early stopping of the LLM's generation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks demonstrate that Tandem reduces computational costs by approximately 40% compared to standalone LLM reasoning, while achieving superior or competitive performance. Furthermore, the sufficiency classifier trained on one domain transfers effectively to others without retraining. The code is available at: https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/ACL2026_Tandem.
Zichuan Fu, Xian Wu, Guojing Li +7
City University of Hong Kong · Tencent Jarvis Lab · Renmin University of China +1
Large language models (LLMs) offer strong reasoning capabilities but are often costly to access through commercial APIs, while small language models (SLMs) are easier to deploy locally yet remain weaker in reasoning. This capability-deployment gap has motivated LLM-SLM collaboration, which aims to improve SLM reasoning using LLM capabilities while preserving the deployment advantages of SLMs. Existing approaches mainly follow two paradigms. Knowledge distillation uses LLM-generated answers and reasoning trajectories to train SLMs offline, but requires parameter updates and additional training. Alternatively, online collaboration routes difficult problems to an LLM or leverages LLM-generated guidance and corrections when an SLM encounters difficulties. Although effective, online collaboration requires repeated LLM access. Moreover, the guidance produced for a particular problem is discarded after inference and cannot benefit subsequent problems involving similar reasoning states. In the paper, we focus on a more constrained setting in which the LLM is accessed only offline, the SLM parameters remain fixed, and online inference is performed solely by the SLM. To this end, we propose Reusable Latent Correction (RLC), which converts one-off natural-language guidance from a black-box LLM into persistent corrective experiences in the hidden space of an SLM. RLC stores these experiences in an external bank and retrieves them according to the SLM's current reasoning state, enabling the SLM to reuse LLM-derived corrections during inference without any online LLM calls. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks and SLM scales show that RLC consistently improves SLM reasoning without parameter updates or online LLM calls. Code is available at https://github.com/ZBH031/reusable-latent-correction.
Bohan Zhang, Linan Yue, Weibo Gao +3
Southeast University · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · ZTE Corporation
Large language models (LLMs) provide strong reasoning capabilities but are expensive to serve at scale, whereas small language models (SLMs) are cheaper but less reliable on difficult problems. We introduce PyroDash, a cost-aware framework for token-level SLM-LLM collaborative inference. During generation, the SLM decides whether to request assistance by emitting a control token. A Collaborate Engine then sends the query and partial reasoning trace to a frozen LLM for completion through a single handoff. The policy is internalized in the SLM, requiring neither a separate router, LLM retraining, nor access to LLM logits. PyroDash trains the SLM in three stages: control-token embedding learning, offloading-oriented supervised fine-tuning, and cost-aware alignment with Group Relative Policy Optimization. Its reward balances answer accuracy against inference cost normalized by LLM-only inference. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, PyroDash supports different accuracy-cost operating points. With λ=0.05, it achieves 64.04 percent average accuracy, 6.36 percentage points above the LLM-only baseline, while reducing cost by 20.4 percent. With λ=0.6, it achieves 54.55 percent accuracy with a 1.90 percent LLM token ratio and 0.012 LLM calls per example, reducing total cost from USD 49.36 to USD 1.78. These results show that learned token-level handoffs can reduce LLM use while preserving strong reasoning performance.