Real-world problems span diverse domains, including program synthesis, symbolic reasoning, planning, and optimization, and often require fundamentally different solution paradigms. A central challenge for LLM-based reasoning is twofold: identifying an appropriate problem-solving approach and formulating it correctly. In this paper, we propose AlgoPilot, a cross-paradigm reasoning framework that enables adaptive selection of the solving approaches and structured problem formulation prior to execution. The AlgoPilot framework contains three components: 1) a SteerLM, trained via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), that adaptively selects the solving strategy (paradigm and modes) based on input problems, 2) the corresponding expert GuideLM, trained via SFT, that generates structured formulation guidance tailored to the selected strategy, and 3) an ExecutionLM that generates solutions conditioned on both the selected strategy and its formulation. Unlike prompting-based methods that rely on fixed reasoning templates, our approach learns to adaptively choose and structure problem-solving strategies based on the input. We build AlgoPilot on Qwen3-8B and evaluate across 5 problem categories and 13 benchmarks with 66 unique domains, comparing against both the latest similarly scaled small models and large LLMs. AlgoPilot significantly improves average accuracy for the same model from 38.4% to 72.9%, outperforming the best large LLM prompting baseline GLM-5 by 11.7%. Ablation studies confirm the effectiveness of each component. Notably, we show that the learned steering and formulation modules can transfer across execution models, suggesting their potential to improve other LLMs. Project page: https://sites.google.com/view/algopilot.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of AlgoPilot. Given a natural-language problem input, SteerLM first selects a solving paradigm and guidance mode. If guidance is needed, the corresponding paradigm-specific GuideLM generates formulation guidance. ExecuteLM then produces and executes the final solution conditioned on the selected paradigm and optional guidance.
Figure 2: Training data construction for AlgoPilot. We first generate and filter candidate guidances with execution feedback to train paradigm-specific GuideLMs. The trained GuideLMs are then used in cross-paradigm evaluation, where different paradigm-mode combinations are scored and ranked to construct supervision and rewards for SteerLM.
Figure 3: Distribution of the empirically best solving paradigm across problem categories (test set). For each category, the donut shows what fraction of solvable examples are best addressed by each paradigm family.
Model / Method
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
Large models
GLM-5 \textscDirect
91.6
55.4
54.6
62.2
42.1
61.2
GLM-5 \textscReason
92.5
29.6
46.0
82.2
47.7
59.6
Qwen3-Coder-Next \textscDirect
90.5
46.3
1.9
55.6
32.7
45.4
Qwen3-Coder-Next \textscReason
83.3
40.4
7.9
62.9
43.9
47.7
Small-model baselines
Table 1: Accuracy (%) comparison of AlgoPilot with baselines across five categories. Bold numbers indicate the best result in each column, excluding the not comparable Top-3 analysis row.
Variant
Steer source
Guide source
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
V1
None
None
67.0
42.8
0.0
63.7
18.3
38.4
V2
Self
None
71.0
26.4
0.0
62.2
20.7
36.1
V3
Self
GuideLM
54.0
69.1
38.6
38.5
26.4
45.3
V4
SteerLM
None
67.7
72.7
25.6
26.1
36.5
45.7
AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO
SteerLM
GuideLM
72.9
75.8
91.5
64.6
59.6
72.9
Oracle1
Oracle
None
80.7
80.8
11.0
76.2
28.8
55.5
Table 2: Accuracy (%) comparison of AlgoPilot with ablation variants. Bold numbers indicate the best result in each column, excluding the not comparable oracle rows.
Method & Input
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO , Original
72.9
75.8
91.5
64.6
59.6
72.9
AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO , Paraphrased
69.7
74.2
90.5
50.7
58.0
68.6
Table 3: End-to-end accuracy (%) on original and paraphrased inputs.
Method
Code
CoT
SMT
MILP
PDDL
Avg.
Qwen3-8B \textscDirect
74.7
63.0
54.7
39.7
0.0
53.0
Qwen3-8B \textscReason
92.0
67.3
74.3
56.0
0.0
66.2
AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO
85.1
71.3
73.7
54.2
99.1
73.3
Table 4: Accuracy (%) on held-out domains, grouped by paradigm. Scores within each paradigm and overall are weighted by the number of problem instances.
Model / Method
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
Gemma-4-E4B-it \textscDirect
72.4
32.5
2.5
58.6
29.1
39.0
Gemma-4-E4B-it \textscReason
61.8
74.0
1.3
76.6
40.1
50.8
Gemma-4-E4B-it w/ AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO
78.3
79.5
57.5
42.1
45.1
60.5
Table 5: Accuracy (%) comparison of transferring AlgoPilot directly to Gemma-4-E4B-it with its original prompting performance.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Reward Design
Top-1 Acc.
Top-3
NDCG@3
Valid-3
A1
73.89
77.13
57.81
10.7
A2
73.78
83.67
75.25
84.7
A3
74.01
83.58
75.01
94.8
A4
74.10
83.78
76.07
100.0
Appendix
Table 6: Reward-design ablation results for routing quality and valid structured generation.
Candidate construction
Best-route Recall@3
NDCG@3
Best candidate score
A1
79.60
57.81
71.34
Pad1
83.17
61.66
73.41
Pad2
88.83
70.92
76.77
Pad3
89.19
72.89
77.08
A2
91.72
75.25
78.99
Appendix
Table 7: Candidate-padding controls for A1 , compared with the learned candidate sets from A2 .
Selected route
Same-paradigm Direct better
Any-paradigm Direct better
Guided Code
14.14
25.72
Guided CoT
20.72
27.88
Guided PDDL
0.00
0.00
Guided SMT
2.38
21.43
Guided MILP
1.22
4.88
Overall
11.70
18.54
Appendix
Table 8: Frequency (%) with which a Direct alternative outperforms a selected Guided route across three executions. Each row is conditioned on selections of the indicated Guided route; Overall pools all Guided selections.
Method
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
SteerLM + QA-SFT ExecuteLM , no GuideLM
57.7
55.1
87.6
28.5
67.4
59.3
AlgoPilot
72.9
75.8
91.5
64.6
59.6
72.9
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison with direct QA-based supervised fine-tuning. All values are accuracy (%).
Method
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
Paradigm-specific GuideLM s
72.9
75.8
91.5
64.6
59.6
72.9
Unified GuideLM
67.8
72.5
69.0
30.7
62.4
60.5
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of specialist and unified GuideLM s. All values are accuracy (%).
Model
Mode
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Avg.
GLM-5
Self-routing
91.1
86.6
46.0
82.9
47.5
70.8
Heuristic routing
90.0
88.2
64.1
55.3
59.8
71.5
Template-direct
85.2
88.1
61.7
41.0
46.9
64.6
Qwen3-Coder-Next
Self-routing
83.1
66.7
6.6
78.1
45.9
56.1
Heuristic routing
93.5
90.7
28.6
67.0
63.0
68.6
Template-direct
85.6
90.5
7.9
49.8
58.8
58.5
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison with additional prompting and routing baselines. All values are accuracy (%). Avg. is the mean across the five paradigms.
Breakdown
Category
Top-1 agreement (%)
Problem category
Code
96.04
CoT
96.60
MILP
98.94
PDDL
100.00
SMT
100.00
Paraphrase style
Lexical reformulation
98.33
Appendix
Table 12: Top-1 agreement across problem categories and paraphrase styles.
Breakdown
Category
Original accuracy (%)
Paraphrased accuracy (%)
Problem category
Code
72.86
69.74
CoT
75.78
74.19
MILP
59.58
57.97
PDDL
91.46
90.47
SMT
64.45
50.73
Overall
74.10
68.62
Appendix
Table 13: End-to-end accuracy comparison of paraphrased versus original inputs.
Category
Domain
Source benchmark
Status
# data points
AlgoPilot
Qwen3 8B Direct
Qwen3 8B Reason
Code
Algorithms
BIG-Bench Hard
Seen benchmark; held-out domain
46
87.68
56.52
88.41
Code
Penguins in a Table
BIG-Bench Hard
Seen benchmark; held-out domain
50
82.67
91.33
95.33
CoT
Sports Understanding
BIG-Bench Hard
Seen benchmark; held-out domain
50
50.67
30.00
47.33
CoT
Temporal Sequences
BIG-Bench Hard
Seen benchmark; held-out domain
50
92.00
96.00
87.33
SMT
FOLIO
FOLIO
Unseen benchmark
50
62.67
55.33
68.00
SMT
SATBench
SATBench
Unseen benchmark
50
84.67
54.00
80.67
Appendix
Table 14: Generalization to held-out domains and unseen benchmarks. All accuracy values are percentages.
Model / Method
Code
CoT
PDDL
SMT
MILP
Large models
GLM-5 \textscDirect
91.6 ± 1.0
55.4 ± 0.4
54.6 ± 0.8
62.2 ± 0.6
42.1 ± 2.0
GLM-5 \textscReason
92.5 ± 0.8
29.6 ± 0.8
46.0 ± 0.7
82.2 ± 0.6
47.7 ± 1.2
Qwen3-Coder-Next \textscDirect
90.5 ± 0.1
46.3 ± 0.5
1.9 ± 0.7
55.6 ± 1.6
32.7 ± 0.4
Qwen3-Coder-Next \textscReason
83.3 ± 0.7
40.4 ± 0.7
7.9 ± 0.7
62.9 ± 2.3
43.9 ± 1.3
Small-model baselines
Appendix
Table 15: Accuracy (%) comparison of AlgoPilot with baselines across five categories, with mean ± standard deviation across three samples/runs.
Prompt
Model
Prompt (M)
Completion (M)
Total (M)
direct
GLM-5
3.14
3.17
6.31
direct
Qwen3-Coder
3.21
11.83
15.04
direct
Gemma-4-E4B-it
3.34
7.32
10.67
direct
Qwen3.5-9B
3.35
9.59
12.93
reason
GLM-5
3.35
5.93
9.28
reason
Qwen3-Coder
3.42
20.15
23.57
Appendix
Table 16: Total token usage (in millions) per model–prompt configuration.
Prompt
Model
Code
CoT
MILP
PDDL
SMT
direct
GLM-5
410
19
824
1,168
184
direct
Qwen3-Coder
1,241
466
2,642
4,517
741
direct
Gemma-4-E4B-it
1,832
50
1,494
1,523
520
direct
Qwen3.5-9B
892
57
2,601
4,340
195
reason
GLM-5
718
522
1,225
1,372
870
reason
Qwen3-Coder
2,382
792
6,655
6,309
1,217
Appendix
Table 17: Average completion tokens per LLM call, by paradigm and configuration.
Stage
Calls
Prompt (M)
Completion (M)
Total (M)
SteerLM prediction
2,211
0.78
0.03
0.81
GuideLM generation
5,616
1.97
3.90
5.88
ExecuteLM runs
6,633
6.69
2.80
9.49
Total
14,460
9.44
6.73
16.17
Appendix
Table 18: Evaluation-time token usage of AlgoPilot across all five test categories.
Model
Code
CoT
MILP
PDDL
SMT
AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO
724
450
1049
2470
926
Appendix
Table 19: Average completion tokens per LLM call of AlgoPilot \textscSFT+GRPO , by paradigm.
Wrap with code block
Accuracy (%)
Model
direct
reason
Text-only
Code block
GLM-5
5.3%
71.2%
83.9
5.5
Qwen3-Coder
76.4%
94.1%
67.9
36.7
Appendix
Table 20: Fraction of CoT runs that produce a Python code block instead of a direct textual answer, and accuracy conditioned on output format ( reason prompt).
Model
No domain/problem
Planner: no plan
Wrong plan
Total failures
direct
GLM-5
218
389
0
607
Qwen3-Coder
941
371
0
1,312
reason
GLM-5
511
211
0
722
Qwen3-Coder
667
565
0
1,232
Appendix
Table 21: PDDL failure decomposition (per run, both prompts pooled for Qwen3-Coder).
Failure mode
Count
Fraction of failures
Format mismatch
11
0.6%
Execution error
157
9.1%
Execution timeout
15
0.9%
Generation mismatch
0
0.0%
Incorrect answer
1,535
89.3%
Appendix
Table 22: AlgoPilot failure decomposition over all failed execution runs.
Large language models often apply complex reasoning indiscriminately, leading to overthinking on simple tasks and underthinking on harder ones. We present Route-and-Generate (Rouge), a hierarchical training framework that enables LLMs to adaptively decide when and how much reasoning is required for each input. Our approach decouples reasoning effort allocation from answer generation by introducing a routing policy that allocates a fixed sampling budget across multiple reasoning formats, while the base model is optimized with GRPO using per-sample rewards. To promote efficient reasoning, we employ a rank-based reward that favors shorter correct solutions, and update the routing policy via a closed-form KL-regularized policy improvement step distilled into a neural router. This design encourages concise answers on easy problems while reserving longer reasoning for harder ones, achieving improved accuracy-efficiency trade-offs across multiple reasoning benchmarks.
Tien-Phat Nguyen, Truong Nguyen, Thanh-Thien Le +4
Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam · Monash University, Australia · New York University, USA +1
This paper addresses two limitations of large language models (LLMs) in solving complex problems: (1) their reasoning processes exhibit Bayesian-like stochastic generation, where each token is sampled from a context-dependent probability distribution, leading to inherently random decision trajectories rather than deterministic planning; (2) the reasoning and decision-making mechanisms are statically decoupled, meaning dynamically retrieved domain knowledge fails to dynamically adjust the underlying reasoning strategy. These dual deficiencies result in initial decisions lacking strategic anchoring and reasoning chains often failing to converge on correct solutions, as stochastic generation lacks mechanisms for trajectory correction or knowledge-guided optimization during sequential reasoning. To resolve these issues, we propose a problem-solving method integrated into the LLM's generation process to guide reasoning. This method, compatible with numerous LLMs and featuring reusable solutions, is grounded in a novel Heuristic-Classification-of-Thoughts prompting schema (HCoT). HCoT synergizes the LLM's reasoning ability with a structured problem space via a heuristic classification model that controls the reasoning process and provides reusable abstract solutions. Evaluated on two complex inductive reasoning tasks with ill-defined search spaces, HCoT outperforms existing approaches (e.g., Tree-of-Thoughts and Chain-of-Thoughts prompting) in performance. On the well-structured 24 Game task, HCoT demonstrates significantly higher token efficiency compared to the state-of-the-art Tree-of-Thoughts-Breadth-First-Search. In terms of both accuracy and token usage, HCoT achieves a Pareto frontier balance, offering a strong trade-off between performance and computational cost.
Lei Lin, Jizhao Zhu, Yong Liu +3
Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Shenyang Aerospace University · ZGC LAB, Beijing,China +1
When an LLM-based agent improves on a task, is the gain from the model itself or from the reasoning paradigm wrapped around it? We study this question by comparing six inference-time paradigms, namely Direct, CoT, ReAct, Plan-Execute, Reflection, and ReCode, across four frontier LLMs and ten benchmarks, yielding roughly 18,000 runs. We find that reasoning structure helps dramatically on some tasks but hurts on others: ReAct improves over Direct by 44pp on GAIA, while CoT degrades performance by 15pp on HumanEval. No single paradigm dominates, and oracle per-task selection beats the best fixed paradigm by 17.1pp on average. Motivated by this complementarity, we propose a select-then-solve approach: before answering each task, a lightweight embedding-based router selects the most suitable paradigm. Across four models, the router improves average accuracy from 47.6% to 53.1%, outperforming the best fixed paradigm at 50.3% by 2.8pp and recovering up to 37% of the oracle gap. In contrast, zero-shot self-routing only works for GPT-5 at 67.1% and fails for weaker models, all trailing the learned router. Our results argue that reasoning paradigm selection should be a per-task decision made by a learned router, not a fixed architectural choice.