# Budget Boundary Effects in Test-Time Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38699 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38699/

## 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 20 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 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, 20 of 20)

- [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)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [L1: Controlling How Long A Reasoning Model Thinks With Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04697/) (2025)
- [Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00724/) (2024)
- [Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18547/) (2024)
- [Dynamic Early Exit in Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15895/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Can Be Effective Without Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09858/) (2025)
- [When To Solve, When To Verify: Compute-Optimal Problem Solving and Generative Verification for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01005/) (2025)
- [Stop When Enough: Adaptive Early-Stopping for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10103/) (2025)
- [Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04001/) (2026)
- [Beyond the Frontier: Stochastic Backtracking for Efficient Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25143/) (2026)
- [When Does Deep RL Beat Calibrated Baselines? A Benchmark Study on Adaptive Resource Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26418/) (2026)
- [Oracle Gap and Signal Fidelity: A Fixed-Pool Diagnostic for Test-Time Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.17531/) (2026)
- [Winning by Peeking: Unenforced Budgets and Test-Set Selection Inflate Short-Budget AutoML Comparisons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07303/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A cumulative token cap can fall inside a mathematical derivation, forcing a test-time controller to choose between stopping at the cap (strict) and allowing the current attempt to finish (advisory). We measure this boundary choice with paired offline replays of 19,200 public traces: 120 AIME, BrUMO and HMMT problems and two archive configurations of one model. Candidate order and a 16-attempt cap are fixed, and answer selection is blind to reference answers and correctness labels. Three findings emerge. First, at the 4k cap, most advisory accuracy gains replace abstention with a correct answer; strict stopping pays for an unfinished prefix that the completed-only selector cannot use. Second, comparisons along realized cost differ from same-cap comparisons: advisory 4k in low has higher accuracy than strict 8k at comparable mean completion cost, while in high its observed accuracy is 0.42 points below strict 32k using 59% of its mean tokens. These aggregate comparisons do not establish equal-compute superiority or accuracy equivalence. Third, increased candidate coverage does not guarantee higher answer accuracy: a log-probability selector loses accuracy while coverage rises, including after a source-grade consistency repair. Same-cap majority-accuracy differences shrink below 1.3 percentage points at 32k. Budget curves should jointly state the cap, realized cost, eligible candidates, stopping rule and selector information.