ThinkBooster: A Unified Framework for Seamless Test-Time Scaling of LLM Reasoning

Test-time compute (TTC) scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) reasoning by allocating additional compute during inference, e.g., via multi-sample generation and verifier-based reranking. Existing TTC scaling strategies and reasoning scorers remain fragmented, evaluated under inconsistent protocols, and are rarely analyzed through the lens of quality-cost trade-offs. We introduce ThinkBooster, a unified framework for seamless test-time compute scaling of LLM reasoning, which consists of (i) a modular Python library implementing state-of-the-art TTC scaling strategy and scorer families, (ii) a benchmark that jointly evaluates performance and computational efficiency, and (iii) a deployable OpenAI-compatible proxy service that enables drop-in integration of adaptive reasoning into real-world applications. We further provide a demo visual debugger for inspecting the reasoning trajectories, intermediate selection decisions, and alternative reasoning paths. Empirical results on mathematical and coding tasks reveal the performance-compute trade-offs of TTC scaling strategies and scoring methods and demonstrate that ThinkBooster provides practical gains in real-world tasks. The code is available online under an MIT license.

Tackling the Root of Misinformation by Teaching Laypeople about Logical Fallacies via Socratic Questioning and Critical Argumentation

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

Benchmarking and Enhancing Text-to-Image Models for Generating Visual Representations in Early Arithmetic Education

AI systems are increasingly used to support educational content creation, yet it remains unclear whether they can generate outputs that faithfully represent the pedagogical concepts they are intended to teach. Thus, we introduce equation-to-visual generation, a task that, in contrast to conventional image generation, requires producing pedagogically meaningful visuals from arithmetic equations while precisely preserving their numerical and relational structure. Informed by interviews with teachers and an analysis of educational materials, we construct E2V-Bench, a benchmark spanning four pedagogically grounded visual types, along with automatic metrics for evaluating visual correctness. Our evaluation reveals that recent text-to-image (T2I) models frequently fail on this task, with errors dominated by incorrect object counts and broken relational structure. Building on this, we explore benchmark-guided enhancement strategies. These strategies improve representative models, while the remaining gap calls for stronger numerical and relational grounding in future T2I models.

Diversity Matters: Revisiting Test-Time Compute in Vision-Language Models

Test-time compute (TTC) strategies have emerged as a lightweight approach to boost reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, their application and benefits for vision-language models (VLMs) remain underexplored. We present a systematic study of TTC across seven VLMs and six benchmarks, specifically analyzing feature-based scoring and majority voting methods. We find that feature heuristics fail and voting yields only modest gains in single-model settings. We theoretically show that this limitation stems from a lack of prediction diversity: when outputs are highly correlated, voting provides little benefit. In contrast, multi-model ensembles offer richer diversity, yet standard majority voting fails to account for varying model capabilities. To address this, we propose Entropy-based TTC (ETTC), which selects the most confident prediction based on predictive entropy. Our method reduces to majority voting in the single-model case, but in model ensembles, it leverages confidence disparities to prioritize stronger models. We prove that ETTC outperforms majority voting under mild assumptions and empirically demonstrate that it consistently surpasses both voting and the best individual model. Crucially, our results show that smaller models can synergistically enhance larger ones, unlocking ensembling gains not achievable with standard strategies.

Unveiling the Visual Counting Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models

While Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at interpolation, they suffer catastrophic failures in systematic generalization, most notably in visual counting. In this work, we investigate this extrapolation bottleneck by deconstructing visual counting into three cognitive stages: visual individuation, magnitude awareness, and symbolic mapping. Using synthetic Go boards and linear probes, we demonstrate that visual backbones maintain robust, linearly separable representations of quantity well into the extrapolation regime, ruling out perceptual failure. Furthermore, models retain latent magnitude awareness, successfully performing comparative reasoning on quantities they fail to enumerate. We pinpoint the collapse to the symbolic mapping stage, where the model fails to project valid visual magnitudes onto symbolic tokens. Our findings support a frac tured magnitude hypothesis: VLMs fail to acquire a universal number space, instead learning disjoint, modality-specific statistical manifolds that prevent cross-modal grounding for unseen quantities. Validated on the state-of-the-art foundation model, our results suggest that bridging this gap requires inductive priors enforcing unified representations, as data scaling alone is insufficient.

Learning to Reason Efficiently with A* Post-Training

Many applications of large language models (LLMs) require deductive reasoning, yet models frequently produce incorrect or redundant inference steps. We frame natural language inference as a search problem where the final answer is the valid proof itself, requiring a reasoning procedure in which intermediate inferences are correct. Specifically, we investigate whether LLMs can learn to generate correct and efficient proofs with guidance from A* search -- an algorithm that guarantees an optimally efficient path to a goal. We explore two training techniques: supervised fine-tuning on execution traces from A* and reinforcement learning with A*-informed process reward models. Empirically, we find that Llama-3.2 models in the 1B--3B range benefit substantially from A* post training, going from near-zero accuracy to outperforming DeepSeek-V3.2 -- a much larger model. Our analysis uncovers a trade-off: while simple correctness rewards maximize accuracy, A*-informed signals strike a balance between accuracy and efficiency. Furthermore, we find that on larger search spaces, models trained with imperfect heuristics exhibit superior accuracy. Our results demonstrate a promising direction towards reasoning guided by principles derived from classical search algorithms.

Simulating Students or Sycophantic Problem Solving? On Misconception Faithfulness of LLM Simulators

Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators. Yet such simulators are typically evaluated by output similarity to real students, not by whether they behave like students with coherent misconceptions during interaction. We introduce a controlled framework for evaluating misconception faithfulness, whether a simulator maintains a misconception-driven belief state and updates selectively when feedback addresses the underlying misconception. Central to our framework is a misconception-contrastive feedback protocol that compares targeted feedback against two controls: misaligned feedback (targeting a different but plausible misconception) and generic feedback (only identifying answer is wrong). We propose Selective Flip Score (SFS), which quantifies how much more often a simulator flips its answer under targeted feedback than under contrastive controls. Across seven LLMs (4B-120B), multiple datasets, and prompting strategies, simulators exhibit near-zero SFS, correcting their answers at similarly high rates regardless of feedback relevance. Further analyses reveal a sycophantic failure mode: models behave less like students with misconceptions but more like problem-solvers who treat any corrective signal as a cue to abandon the simulated belief and re-solve from internal knowledge. To address this, we develop a post-training pipeline spanning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, and reinforcement learning (RL) with an SFS-aligned reward; SFT yields notable gains up to +0.56, and SFS-aligned RL provides more consistent improvements than preference optimization. Our results establish misconception faithfulness as a challenging yet trainable property, motivating a shift from static output matching toward interactive, belief-aware student modeling.

Efficient Test-Time Inference via Deterministic Exploration of Truncated Decoding Trees

Self-consistency boosts inference-time performance by sampling multiple reasoning traces in parallel and voting. However, in constrained domains like math and code, this strategy is compute-inefficient because it samples with replacement, repeatedly revisiting the same high-probability prefixes and duplicate completions. We propose Distinct Leaf Enumeration (DLE), a deterministic decoding method that treats truncated sampling as traversal of a pruned decoding tree and systematically enumerates distinct leaves instead of sampling with replacement. This strategy improves inference efficiency in two ways. Algorithmically, it increases coverage of the truncated search space under a fixed budget by exploring previously unvisited high-probability branches. Systemically, it reuses shared prefixes and reduces redundant token generation. Empirically, DLE explores higher-quality reasoning traces than stochastic self-consistency, yielding better performance on math, coding, and general reasoning tasks.

Can LLMs Model Incorrect Student Reasoning? A Case Study on Distractor Generation

Modeling plausible student misconceptions is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating multiple-choice distractors, a task that requires modeling incorrect yet plausible answers by coordinating solution knowledge, simulating student misconceptions, and evaluating plausibility. We introduce a taxonomy for analyzing the strategies used by state-of-the-art LLMs, examining their reasoning procedures and comparing them to established best practices in the learning sciences. Our structured analysis reveals a surprising alignment between their processes and best practices: the models typically solve the problem correctly first, then articulate and simulate multiple potential misconceptions, and finally select a set of distractors. An analysis of failure modes reveals that errors arise primarily from failures in recovering the correct solution and selecting among response candidates, rather than simulating errors or structuring the process. Consistent with these results, we find that providing the correct solution in the prompt improves alignment with human-authored distractors by 8%, highlighting the critical role of anchoring to the correct solution when generating plausible incorrect student reasoning. Overall, our analysis offers a structured and interpretable lens into LLMs' ability to model incorrect student reasoning and produce high-quality distractors.

Optimizing Language Models for Crosslingual Knowledge Consistency

Large language models are known to often exhibit inconsistent knowledge. This is particularly problematic in multilingual scenarios, where models are likely to be asked similar questions in different languages, and inconsistent responses can undermine their reliability. In this work, we show that this issue can be mitigated using reinforcement learning with a structured reward function, which leads to an optimal policy with consistent crosslingual responses. We introduce Direct Consistency Optimization (DCO), a DPO-inspired method that requires no explicit reward model and is derived directly from the LLM itself. Comprehensive experiments show that DCO significantly improves crosslingual consistency across diverse LLMs and outperforms existing methods when training with samples of multiple languages, while complementing DPO when gold labels are available. Extra experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of DCO in bilingual settings, significant out-of-domain generalizability, and controllable alignment via direction hyperparameters. Taken together, these results establish DCO as a robust and efficient solution for improving knowledge consistency across languages in multilingual LLMs. All code, training scripts, and evaluation benchmarks are released at https://github.com/Betswish/ConsistencyRL.