# Thinking Before You Speak: A Proactive Test-time Scaling Approach

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18648 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18648/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 10 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24235/) (2025)
- [Mutual Reasoning Makes Smaller LLMs Stronger Problem-Solvers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06195/) (2024)
- [Buffer of Thoughts: Thought-Augmented Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04271/) (2024)
- [START: Self-taught Reasoner with Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04625/) (2025)
- [Disentangling Memory and Reasoning Ability in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.13504/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit deficiencies with complex reasoning tasks, such as maths, which we attribute to the discrepancy between human reasoning patterns and those presented in the LLMs' training data. When dealing with complex problems, humans tend to think carefully before expressing solutions. However, they often do not articulate their inner thoughts, including their intentions and chosen methodologies. Consequently, critical insights essential for bridging reasoning steps may be absent in training data collected from human sources. To bridge this gap, we proposes inserting insights between consecutive reasoning steps, which review the status and initiate the next reasoning steps. Unlike prior prompting strategies that rely on a single or a workflow of static prompts to facilitate reasoning, insights are proactively generated to guide reasoning processes. We implement our idea as a reasoning framework, named Thinking Before You Speak (TBYS), and design a pipeline for automatically collecting and filtering in-context examples for the generation of insights, which alleviates human labeling efforts and fine-tuning overheads. Experiments on challenging mathematical datasets verify the effectiveness of TBYS. Project website: https://gitee.com/jswrt/TBYS