Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech · Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech · FBRI Cancer Research Center, Washington, DC
Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes. We study this as a deployment allocation problem rather than a new-verifier problem. We introduce \sevra, Selective Verification for Reasoning Allocation, a serving-layer controller that decides whether to preserve a frozen solver's initial answer or invoke active verification. Using a frozen Qwen3-4B solver, we log intervention outcomes and train recoverability-aware gates from serving-visible attempt state. On \mathfive, selective verification reaches 76.3% accuracy, compared with 75.5% for always verifying, while reducing post-generation tokens by 26.8% and harmful flips from 2.2% to 1.0%. However, an 8,192-token initial solve reaches 76.0% accuracy with 28% fewer total model tokens, showing that selective recovery is useful but not the best tested cost frontier. In frozen transfer to \gsm, the selective policy verifies only 3.0% of examples, improves accuracy from 93.4% to 94.5%, and reduces verification tokens by 91.2% relative to always verifying; again, a longer initial solve matches its accuracy with fewer realized tokens. On CommonsenseQA, always-on verification hurts, while Self-Consistency@5 improves accuracy at about five times the realized token cost. The resulting deployment rule is: tune the initial budget first, then use selective recovery when explicit checks, bounded retries, auditability, or regression-risk control matter.
Parallel reasoning, where a generator samples many candidate solutions and an aggregator selects the best, is one of the most effective forms of test-time scaling in large language models, and pairwise self-verification has become its strongest aggregation primitive. Yet pairwise verification carries a heavy cost: each judgment reads two complete solutions in full, and existing methods perform tens of such judgments per problem regardless of whether the comparison is informative. We introduce CAPS (Cascaded Adaptive Pairwise Selection), an inference-only framework that allocates verifier compute non-uniformly along two orthogonal axes: an evidence axis that adapts how much of each candidate the judge sees, and a distribution axis that adapts how comparisons are spread across the pool. CAPS instantiates these into a four-stage cascade with an optional rescue subroutine, and admits a closed-form verifier-token cost in which the per-candidate marginal cost is roughly halved relative to uniform full-evidence schedules. On four self-verifying models (Qwen3-14B, GPT-OSS-20B, Qwen3-4B-Instruct/Thinking) and five reasoning benchmarks spanning code (LiveCodeBench-v5/v6, CodeContests) and math (AIME 2025, HMMT 2025), CAPS outperforms the leading pairwise verifier on 14 of 20 suites while using 25.4% of its verifier-token budget on code, and outperforms pointwise self-verification on all 20. The trade-off suites admit an interpretable diagnostic in terms of the verifier's accuracy at partial versus full evidence, providing a concrete pre-deployment check for cascade suitability.
Scaling test-time computation can improve language-model reasoning, but uniform budgets waste computation on easy inputs, while verifier-guided refinement relies on external feedback. We introduce Self-Verifying Refinement (SVR), an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy. At each turn, the model produces a solution together with a discrete correctness verdict and a confidence score; it retains the current answer only when the verdict is Correct and confidence exceeds a threshold, and otherwise continues refinement using its own self-verification. Ground-truth correctness is used only to construct training rewards and is never exposed to the policy through refinement prompts or required at inference. SVR is trained with GRPO on fixed-horizon trajectories using rewards that promote solution correctness, calibration-aware self-verification, and stop-ready correct states; adaptive stopping is activated only at inference. On seven mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Qwen3.5-2B, SVR achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average. In the evaluated complete-system comparison, it exceeds standard GRPO, strong multi-turn baselines, and a fixed-budget oracle-guided score-feedback reference while requiring substantially fewer turns than fixed ten-turn inference. These results demonstrate that learned self-verification can serve as an effective internal control signal for answer retention and adaptive test-time compute allocation.
Reasoning language models increasingly use test-time compute to improve performance, but existing evaluations typically study this compute one question at a time. Yet when multiple problems share an end-to-end cost or latency constraint, models must decide how to divide limited inference compute among them. We introduce an exam-style evaluation framework for studying this setting, in which a model must distribute one shared token budget across questions with different difficulty and point values to maximize its total score. Across several open and frontier reasoning models, we find that models fail to allocate a shared budget strategically across questions of varying difficulties and values. Models behave largely as greedy sequential solvers: they prioritize questions by presentation order, front-load effort on early questions, and remain insensitive to value, with these tendencies becoming more pronounced as the number of questions grows. Explicit planning prompts spread compute more evenly but do not produce value- or difficulty-aware prioritization. The same behavioral pattern extends from mathematical to code reasoning. These findings establish global budget allocation as a distinct capability that is not captured by conventional per-question evaluation and remains a challenge for current reasoning models.