Think Again or Think Longer? Selective Verification for Budget-Aware Reasoning
arXiv AIArchived Jun 19, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.19808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 froze
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 18 Jun 2026]
Think Again or Think Longer? Selective Verification for Budget-Aware Reasoning
Sajib Acharjee Dip, Dawei Zhou, Liqing Zhang
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.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.19808 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.19808v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.19808
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Sajib Acharjee Dip [view email]
[v1] Thu, 18 Jun 2026 05:25:43 UTC (2,796 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)