# Recursive Agentic Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23956 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.23956/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 24 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09687/) (2023)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [Omni-MATH: A Universal Olympiad Level Mathematic Benchmark For Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07985/) (2024)
- [BIG-Bench Extra Hard](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19187/) (2025)
- [Every Rollout Counts: Optimal Resource Allocation for Efficient Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15707/) (2025)
- [Step-level Verifier-guided Hybrid Test-Time Scaling for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15512/) (2025)
- [Policy Guided Tree Search for Enhanced LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06813/) (2025)
- [Recursive Models for Long-Horizon Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.02112/) (2026)
- [SSR: Socratic Self-Refine for Large Language Model Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.10621/) (2025)
- [Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04001/) (2026)
- [Recursive Agent Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06639/) (2026)
- [What If We Allocate Test-Time Compute Adaptively?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01070/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.