# Think Again or Think Longer? Selective Verification for Budget-Aware Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19808 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19808/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 14 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 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, 14 of 14)

- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18665/) (2024)
- [Let's reward step by step: Step-Level reward model as the Navigators for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10080/) (2023)
- [Adaptive Test-Time Compute Allocation for Reasoning LLMs via Constrained Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.14853/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Test-Time Compute Allocation via Learned Heuristics over Categorical Structure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03975/) (2026)
- [LATTS: Locally Adaptive Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20368/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Cross-Provider Review as a Runtime Contract for Coding Agents: A Controlled Pilot and Fault-Injection Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.10961/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.