Recursive reasoning systems alternate between acquiring new evidence and refining an accumulated understanding. Two design choices are typically left implicit: how to represent the evolving reasoning state, and when to stop iterating. This paper addresses both. We represent the reasoning state as an epistemic state graph encoding extracted claims, evidential relations, open questions, and confidence weights. We define the order-gap as the distance between the states reached by expand-then-consolidate versus consolidate-then-expand; a small order-gap suggests that the two orderings agree and further iteration is unlikely to help. Our main result gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the linearised order-gap to be non-degenerate near the fixed point, showing when the criterion is informative rather than algebraically vacuous. This is a local condition, not a global convergence guarantee. We apply the framework to recursive reasoning systems and sketch its application to agent loops, tree-of-thought reasoning, theorem proving, and continual learning.
A natural way to cut reasoning-model inference cost is to repeatedly probe a single partial trajectory for its current answer and stop once probes agree -- self-consensus. We ask whether any such rule is both safe and token-saving, and whether one can be selected once and reused. A preregistered sweep of 3,520 consensus rules, replayed on frozen trajectories from two models and three benchmarks, clears none of three acceptance gates fixed in advance; the frontier reproduces on a held-out split and on two unseen models -- while a boundary-confidence control (DEER) swept through the same pipeline clears all three. The reason lies in the signal: agreement establishes that the current answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that the reasoning has terminated -- a consensus-termination gap. Stopping on it commits non-terminal answers. At a rule still saving 32% of the tokens, one stop in nine fires on an answer the trajectory itself later abandons, and most of those stops cut off a correction it would otherwise have made. Widening the agreement window does not remove them: the share levels off near 7%, and by then the saving has fallen to 8%. Probe re-wording and a hand-labelled error taxonomy show the agreed answer is often a placeholder the model had not settled on. Used on its own as the stop signal, agreement fails not because it is insufficiently strict, but because it repeatedly measures the wrong object.
How should future neural reasoning systems implement extended computation? Recursive Reasoning Models (RRMs) offer a promising alternative to autoregressive sequence extension by performing iterative latent-state refinement with shared transition functions. Yet existing RRMs are largely deterministic, following a single latent trajectory and converging to a single prediction. We introduce Generative Recursive reAsoning Models (GRAM), a framework that turns recursive latent reasoning into probabilistic multi-trajectory computation. GRAM models reasoning as a stochastic latent trajectory, enabling multiple hypotheses, alternative solution strategies, and inference-time scaling through both recursive depth and parallel trajectory sampling. This yields a latent-variable generative model supporting conditional reasoning via pθ(y∣x) and, with fixed or absent inputs, unconditional generation via pθ(x). Trained with amortized variational inference, GRAM improves over deterministic recurrent and recursive baselines on structured reasoning and multi-solution constraint satisfaction tasks, while demonstrating an unconditional generation capability. https://ahn-ml.github.io/gram-website
While test-time scaling improves the problem-solving ability of large reasoning models (LRMs) through additional inference-time computation, it can also exacerbate overthinking and underthinking, which we formulate as reasoning state--action mismatch. Resolving this mismatch requires reliable reasoning state diagnosis, yet single-signal monitors provide ambiguous evidence, while steering-based controllers often rely on outcome-labeled supervision or model-specific calibration. We introduce the Uncertainty--Progress Alignment Hypothesis, which posits that the relative transition timing of proxy answer uncertainty and latent reasoning progress distinguishes healthy, stagnant, and ready states that warrant different subsequent actions. Building on this insight, we propose UPAIR, a training-free framework that couples lightweight uncertainty monitoring with event-triggered joint diagnosis and maps the resulting state to native continuation, selective strategy switching, or verification-guided stopping. Across three LRMs and five cross-domain benchmarks, the stagnation diagnosis detects 64.3% of natural errors while flagging only 5.4% of correct samples, revealing a dynamic reasoning regularity shared across models and tasks. End to end, UPAIR improves accuracy by up to 16.67 percentage points and reduces generated tokens by up to 29.64%, demonstrating the effectiveness of its integrated diagnosis and intervention, while online diagnosis costs less than 1% of natural-generation time.