Recursive Agentic Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23956v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 01:34:08 GMT
• Title: Recursive Agentic Reasoning
• Abstract summary: Test-time reasoning methods such as iterative refinement, decomposition, and repeated sampling are often evaluated in isolation.<n>We introduce a unified view of these methods as recursion operators over an agent's reasoning trace.<n>We evaluate all three operators against a single-pass chain-of-thought baseline under a shared harness with identical prompts, token budgets, and grading code.
• Score: 4.7490116928645065
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Test-time reasoning methods such as iterative refinement, decomposition, and repeated sampling are often evaluated in isolation, making their gains difficult to compare across models, benchmarks, and evaluation pipelines. We introduce a unified view of these methods as recursion operators over an agent's reasoning trace: GROW, which deepens a single reasoning path; PRUNE, which decomposes and recomposes the problem; and BRANCH, which samples alternative reasoning paths and selects among them. We evaluate all three operators against a single-pass chain-of-thought baseline under a shared harness with identical prompts, token budgets, and grading code. Across five benchmarks and three frontier models, comprising 14 model-benchmark settings, 49,327 graded items, and 151,876 model calls, BRANCH improves accuracy in all 14 settings by an average of 5.98 percentage points and is the best-performing operator in 12. In contrast, GROW yields a mean gain of 2.18 points and degrades performance in two settings, while PRUNE improves accuracy by 0.94 points on average. Analysis shows that BRANCH's advantage arises not only from exploring multiple reasoning paths, but also from recovering from truncation: its gains strongly correlate with the baseline rate of empty, budget-exhausted outputs (r = 0.72). These results weaken the hypothesis that different problems require routing among test-time reasoning operators; at this level of abstraction, repeated branching is consistently dominant. Finally, we show that unpaired evaluation and treating scoring-pipeline failures as model errors can materially change, and even reverse, comparative conclusions, motivating paired scoring as a standard protocol for test-time-compute evaluation.

Related papers

• CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription [5.823033362443801]
  We present CARRE, a three-stage framework that combines retrieval-augmented candidate generation, cost-aware counterfactual scoring, and large language model (LLM) reasoning.<n>On the IBM Telco Customer Churn dataset, CARRE achieves 79.8% greater mean model-predicted risk reduction than the plain SHAP baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T06:08:02Z)
• PerceptionRubrics: Calibrating Multimodal Evaluation to Human Perception [75.70273182182397]
  PerceptionRubrics is a rubric-based evaluation framework.<n>It addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness.<n>It pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-26T17:59:15Z)
• When to Retrieve During Reasoning: Adaptive Retrieval for Large Reasoning Models [13.891522069967507]
  We introduce ReaLM-Retrieve, a reasoning-aware retrieval framework.<n>Step-level uncertainty detector identifies knowledge gaps at reasoning-step rather than token or sentence level.<n>Retrieval intervention policy learns when external evidence maximally benefits ongoing reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T13:15:44Z)
• ContraPrompt: Contrastive Prompt Optimization via Dyadic Reasoning Trace Analysis [0.6372261626436676]
  We introduce ContraPrompt, built on the observation that when a model fails but succeeds on a retry with feedback, the difference constitutes an optimization signal.<n>Unlike prior contrastive methods, we compare complete intermediate reasoning processes.<n>ContraPrompt beats GEPA on 11, ties on 41, and loses on 1 at equal budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T08:17:15Z)
• On the Role of Reasoning Patterns in the Generalization Discrepancy of Long Chain-of-Thought Supervised Fine-Tuning [63.41902113656453]
  Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories has become a pivotal phase in building large reasoning models.<n>We conduct a comparative study using two sources of verified CoT trajectories generated by two competing models.<n>We find that SFT on textttDeepSeek-R1-0528 data achieves remarkably lower training loss, yet exhibits significantly worse generalization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T07:00:54Z)
• On Randomness in Agentic Evals [6.177270420667714]
  Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks.<n>Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate.<n>We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T19:49:13Z)
• Solver-in-the-Loop: MDP-Based Benchmarks for Self-Correction and Behavioral Rationality in Operations Research [19.31559944205485]
  Operations Research practitioners routinely debug infeasible models through an iterative process.<n>We introduce two benchmarks that place the textbfsolver in the evaluation loop<n>We find that domain-specific RLVR training enables an 8B model to surpass frontier APIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T20:02:44Z)
• Efficient Thought Space Exploration through Strategic Intervention [54.35208611253168]
  We propose a novel Hint-Practice Reasoning (HPR) framework that operationalizes this insight through two synergistic components.<n>The framework's core innovation lies in Distributional Inconsistency Reduction (DIR), which dynamically identifies intervention points.<n> Experiments across arithmetic and commonsense reasoning benchmarks demonstrate HPR's state-of-the-art efficiency-accuracy tradeoffs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T07:26:01Z)
• DeepPrune: Parallel Scaling without Inter-trace Redundancy [53.62015294143274]
  Over 80% of parallel reasoning traces yield identical final answers, representing substantial wasted computation.<n>We propose DeepPrune, a novel framework that enables efficient parallel scaling through dynamic pruning.<n>Our work establishes a new standard for efficient parallel reasoning, making high-performance reasoning more efficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T17:24:54Z)
• Do Repetitions Matter? Strengthening Reliability in LLM Evaluations [0.374750127323442]
  LLM leaderboards often rely on single runs, but how many repetitions are required for reliable conclusions remains unclear.<n>We re-evaluated eight state-of-the-art models on the AI4Math Benchmark with three independent runs per setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T21:45:20Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• SEAL: Steerable Reasoning Calibration of Large Language Models for Free [58.931194824519935]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated compelling capabilities for complex reasoning tasks via the extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning mechanism.<n>Recent studies reveal substantial redundancy in the CoT reasoning traces, which negatively impacts model performance.<n>We introduce SEAL, a training-free approach that seamlessly calibrates the CoT process, improving accuracy while demonstrating significant efficiency gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T02:42:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.