Understanding Performance Gap Between Parallel and Sequential Sampling in Large Reasoning Models

Scaling test-time reasoning has substantially improved the problem-solving ability of large language models (LLMs), but standard autoregressive decoding still executes long reasoning traces sequentially, creating severe latency for difficult tasks (up to days and weeks). Parallel reasoning offers a natural remedy. However, prior systems primarily focus on Subtask Parallelism, where the model learns to decompose a high-level task into smaller chunks that can be solved independently. This approach overlooks another pervasive form of parallelism: Trial Parallelism, where multiple speculative attempts explore, verify, and aggregate competing hypotheses in parallel. In this paper, we introduce Parason, which reveals and learns both forms of parallelism in LLM reasoning. Our analysis identifies Trial Parallelism as the majority of parallelizable reasoning computation (65.5% in DeepSeek-V4's reasoning steps in HLE), and it becomes increasingly dominant on hard problems. Guided by this taxonomy, Parason converts sequential reasoning traces into structured parallel trajectories with a context-free grammar, then trains models with Parallelism-Aware Group Relative Policy Optimization (PA-GRPO), whose reward jointly balances accuracy, latency, and the two parallelism ratios. At inference time, Parason executes the learned parallel structure through tool calls, translating theoretical savings to real-world wall-clock acceleration. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks including AIME24 and AIME25 show that Parason achieves an average acceleration about 1.7$\times$ while maintaining competitive accuracy.

Compute scaling for LLM reasoning trades off exploring solution approaches (breadth) against refining promising ones (depth), yet why a given trade-off works, and why it often fails to transfer across models, remains unclear. We argue that the optimal strategy depends on the model's diversity profile, the spread of probability mass across solution approaches, and that this must be characterized before any exploration strategy is adopted. We formalize this with a framework decomposing reasoning uncertainty, deriving when depth-based refinement outperforms parallel sampling, and validate it across three model families at both inference and training. Our central finding is that the diversity regime dictates the strategy: low-diversity aligned models benefit from depth-based refinement with lightweight intrinsic signals, whereas high-diversity base models are often harmed by it, and instead need breadth or stronger signals to compensate.

Power-sharpened sampling is an inference-time alternative to reinforcement-learning (RL) post-training for enhancing reasoning in large language models (LLMs). High-probability sequences are amplified under the base model without parameter updates or external rewards, avoiding the costly optimization and jagged generalization of RL. However, this approach faces a fundamental exploration--exploitation trade-off, as % strong sharpening restricts exploration, trapping samplers in plausible but incorrect reasoning trajectories, whereas weak sharpening leaves the answer distribution diffuse. To resolve this trade-off, we introduce Parallel Power Tempering (PPT), instantiating power-sharpened LLM sampling via parallel tempering. Running multiple interacting replicas in parallel at different sharpening levels allows lower-power replicas to explore diverse reasoning trajectories and higher-power chains to further exploit higher-likelihood responses favored by the sharpened target. Specifically, we tailor \method{} to inference-time sampling by mitigating a truncation bias, identified in prior power samplers, and investigate effective swap strategies under finite memory and compute budgets. Extensive experimentation shows that \method{} substantially improves single-chain power-sharpened sampling and outperforms RL-post-trained models, producing higher-quality reasoning traces and even achieving performance comparable to frontier models.