# Dual-Track CoT: Budget-Aware Stepwise Guidance for Small LMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25039 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25039/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 7 of its 7 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Less is More: Recursive Reasoning with Tiny Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04871/) (2025)
- [AutoPSV: Automated Process-Supervised Verifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16802/) (2024)
- [Critic-CoT: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via Chain-of-thoughts Critic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.16326/) (2024)
- [Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs by Stepwise Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12934/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) solve many reasoning tasks via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, but smaller models (about 7 to 8B parameters) still struggle with multi-step reasoning under tight compute and token budgets. Existing test time reasoning methods such as self consistency (sampling multiple rationales and voting), Tree-of-Thoughts (search over intermediate thoughts), and critique revise loops improve performance, but often at high token cost and without fine-grained step-level control. This project1 aims to address that gap: can Small Language Models (SLMs) reason reliably using the same or fewer tokens? This question is both scientific and practical. Scientifically, it probes whether process supervision and simple test-time controls (such as token budgets and rejection of redundant steps) can substitute for model scale or large sampling counts. Practically, many deployments (on-device, low-latency, or cost-constrained settings) cannot afford huge models or dozens of sampled rationales per query. A method that improves SLM reasoning at fixed cost would therefore be directly useful.