The democratization of ubiquitous AI hinges on deploying sophisticated reasoning capabilities on resource-constrained devices. However, Small Language Models (SLMs) often face a "reasoning gap", particularly in non-English languages like Vietnamese, where they struggle to maintain coherent chains of thought. This paper investigates Test-Time Scaling strategies for the Qwen3-1.7B architecture within the context of Vietnamese Elementary Mathematics. We introduce Vi-S1K, a high-fidelity reasoning dataset localized via a Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite powered pipeline, and Vi-Elementary-Bench, a dual-resource benchmark for rigorous evaluation. Using an LLM-as-a-Judge protocol, we reveal that the base model possesses robust latent knowledge (Accuracy: 4.05/5.00) but suffers from a severe "formatting gap" in communication. Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) acts as a critical "reasoning unlocker", yielding a 77% improvement in Explanation Quality and bridging the gap between raw calculation and pedagogical coherence. Furthermore, our analysis of prompting strategies uncovers a significant trade-off: structured frameworks like ReAct impose a "cognitive tax" on the 1.7B parameter capacity, degrading performance relative to pure Chain-of-Thought (CoT) combined with Self-Consistency. These findings establish a deployment hierarchy for SLMs, demonstrating that SFT combined with simplified test-time scaling is superior to complex agentic workflows for edge-based reasoning.
Test-time scaling (TTS) reliably improves reasoning in large language models, but whether it transfers to small open vision-language models remains unclear. We examine this on EXAMS-V, a multilingual visual multiple-choice benchmark, comparing self-consistency, describe-then-reason with PRM-guided beam search, and two post-hoc selectors across Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct and Qwen3.5-4B. What matters is the conditions under which TTS runs, not the search or verification machinery. The largest factor is parseability: an early prompt format left many chains reasoning correctly yet never committing to an answer letter, which a standard answer cue and a guided repair step largely remove. A larger decoding budget removes the rest: raising the per-chain token limit from 1k to 2k recovers 3.7 pp, whereas sampling more chains (8 to 16) adds only 0.15 pp. Once chains have room to finish, elaborate methods contribute little: PRM-guided beam search trails plain self-consistency by 0.39 pp at over eight times the cost, and neither a training-free generative critic nor a trained multimodal PRM beats majority vote across both policies. The largest gain comes instead from the policy model itself (+11.4 pp). Our best configuration reaches 84.1% on the held-out ImageCLEF 2026 test split, ranking first on the Visual MCQ leaderboard.
Large Language Models (LLMs) solve many reasoning tasks via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, but smaller models (about 7 to 8B parameters) still struggle with multi-step reasoning under tight compute and token budgets. Existing test time reasoning methods such as self consistency (sampling multiple rationales and voting), Tree-of-Thoughts (search over intermediate thoughts), and critique revise loops improve performance, but often at high token cost and without fine-grained step-level control. This project1 aims to address that gap: can Small Language Models (SLMs) reason reliably using the same or fewer tokens? This question is both scientific and practical. Scientifically, it probes whether process supervision and simple test-time controls (such as token budgets and rejection of redundant steps) can substitute for model scale or large sampling counts. Practically, many deployments (on-device, low-latency, or cost-constrained settings) cannot afford huge models or dozens of sampled rationales per query. A method that improves SLM reasoning at fixed cost would therefore be directly useful.
Recently, language models have made rapid progress across various domains and applications. However, their capability for self-improvement, i.e., whether they are adept at recognising and correcting flaws in their own reasoning, remains dubious. In this study, we address this question by constructing a sufficiency test to rigorously examine the self-correction capabilities of small language models (SLMs). We propose a minimal three-step self-correction pipeline that collects initial SLM answers, prompts the same model to generate hints for its incorrect responses given the ground truth, and feeds the model the same question with its own feedback to refine the initial answer. We evaluate a variety of instruction-tuned and reasoning SLMs in this experimental setup on arithmetic and logical reasoning benchmarks. Our findings show that SLMs with injected hint sentences yield only a 4.4 percent gain over initial question-answering accuracy. Even though the correct answer was provided alongside the model's incorrect reasoning, the evaluated SLMs fail to understand what was missing in their reasoning and show minimal semantic difference between hints that lead to corrections and ones that do not. Furthermore, our experiments show that longer hints are positively correlated with incorrect final answers, suggesting that longer deliberation on problems can hinder the reasoning process, meaning that SLMs do not necessarily scale in performance with a larger compute budget.