Knowledge transfer between simple discrete worlds

Recursive reasoning models such as the Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) iteratively refine two latent states: an answer state y, decoded into the output, and a reasoning state z, which is never decoded. Many of their failures have been attributed to bad basins, regions of latent space that trap the recursion on wrong answers. Recent test-time approaches perturb y, z or both to recover these failures, but the impact of this choice on performance, test-time compute efficiency and scaling properties remains unclear. Through controlled experiments on TRM, we find that a failed trajectory carries its failure in its answer state. At equal compute, in depth and in width, resampling y recovers more failures than any perturbation of z we tested, and the performance gap widens as the test-time compute budget grows. Our approach, Gated Answer Resampling (GAR), pairs this resampling of the answer state with the model's own halting head and restarts only the puzzles that the head rejects. With at most 64 restarts per puzzle and no training or hyperparameter search, GAR takes TRM from 85.9% to 99.4% on Sudoku-Extreme and from 68.8% to 85.6% on Pencil Puzzle Bench validation. On the same checkpoints, GAR also outperforms Probabilistic TRM (PTRM), which perturbs z at each step, even when PTRM uses 42 to 197 times as much compute.

Automated science needs agents that can work out the rules of an unfamiliar environment by interacting with it. Interactive rule-discovery puzzles offer a controlled setting for studying this ability: an agent infers hidden rules through experimentation and uses what it has inferred to reach a stated goal. We ask what limits current language models on these puzzles and whether reinforcement learning (RL) improves performance on rules held out from training. To study both, we introduce WITNESS, a 2D grid-based puzzle environment with ground-truth ASCII observations and controlled access to rules. An agentic pipeline generates games for WitnessGym, the RL training suite, and WitnessBench, comprising public validation and private test games. The validation set separately tests new compositions of trained rule primitives and primitives absent from training. Under a shared harness, the best of 18 frontier proprietary and open-weight models solves only 24% of private test level slots, with scores sensitive to the observation interface and agent configuration. Providing ground-truth rules raises Opus-5's validation RHAE-L5 (relative human action efficiency over the first five levels) from 59.9 to 97.8, whereas a 27B open-weight model gains only 2.1 points and remains limited even with the rules provided. RL on WitnessGym raises the 27B model's private test RHAE-L5 from 2.1 to 5.4 and yields a mean gain of 4.1 points on four external discovery benchmarks. Together, these results point to rule acquisition as a major difficulty for frontier models like Opus-5 while smaller models further struggle on rule-based execution, and indicate that RL on hidden-rule puzzles transfers to broader rules and real-world tasks beyond training. Benchmark is available at: https://witnessbench.ai

Recursive reasoning models such as Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM) and Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) show that small, weight-shared networks can solve compute-heavy and NP puzzles by iteratively refining latent states, but their training typically relies on deep supervision and/or long unrolls that increase wall-clock cost and can bias the model toward greedy intermediate behavior. We introduce Recursive Stem Model (RSM), a recursive reasoning approach that keeps the TRM-style backbone while changing the training contract so the network learns a stable, depth-agnostic transition operator. RSM fully detaches the hidden-state history during training, treats early iterations as detached "warm-up" steps, and applies loss only at the final step. We further grow the outer recursion depth $H$ and inner compute depth $L$ independently and use a stochastic outer-transition scheme (stochastic depth over $H$) to mitigate instability when increasing depth. This yields two key capabilities: (i) $>20\times$ faster training than TRM while improving accuracy ($\approx 5\times$ reduction in error rate), and (ii) test-time scaling where inference can run for arbitrarily many refinement steps ($\sim 20,000 H_{\text{test}} \gg 20 H_{\text{train}}$), enabling additional "thinking" without retraining. On Sudoku-Extreme, RSM reaches 97.5% exact accuracy with test-time compute (within ~1 hour of training on a single A100), and on Maze-Hard ($30 \times 30$) it reaches ~80% exact accuracy in ~40 minutes using attention-based instantiation. Finally, because RSM implements an iterative settling process, convergence behavior provides a simple, architecture-native reliability signal: non-settling trajectories warn that the model has not reached a viable solution and can be a guard against hallucination, while stable fixed points can be paired with domain verifiers for practical correctness checks.