Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

CopT: Contrastive On-Policy Thinking with Continuous Spaces for General and Agentic Reasoning

About

Chain-of-thought (CoT) is a standard approach for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, the common CoT paradigm treats thinking as a prerequisite for answering, which can delay access to plausible answers and incur unnecessary token costs even when the model is able to identify an answer before extended thinking, a behavior known as performative reasoning. In this paper, we introduce CopT, a reformulated reasoning pipeline that reverses the usual order of thinking and answering. Instead of thinking before answering, CopT first elicits a draft answer and then invokes subsequent on-policy thinking conditioned on its own draft answer for reflection and correction. To assess whether the draft answer should be trusted, CopT recasts continuous embeddings as inference-time contrastive verifiers. Specifically, it contrasts the model's support for the same generated tokens under discrete-token inputs and continuous-embedding inputs, yielding a sequence-level reverse KL estimator for answer reliability. Our analysis shows that under certain assumptions, the expected estimate equals the mutual information between the unresolved latent state and the emitted answer token, explaining why it captures answer-relevant uncertainty rather than arbitrary uncertainty in the latent state. When the answer is deemed insufficiently reliable, CopT performs further on-policy thinking, where a second KL estimator dynamically controls draft-answer visibility, preserving useful partial information while reducing the risk of being misled by unreliable content. Across mathematics, coding, and agentic reasoning tasks, CopT improves peak accuracy by up to 23% and reduces token usage by up to 57% at comparable or higher accuracy, without any additional training. The code is available at https://github.com/sdc17/CopT.

Dachuan Shi, Hanlin Zhu, Xiangchi Yuan, Wanjia Zhao, Kejing Xia, Wen Xiao, Wenke Lee• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Mathematical ReasoningAIME 24
Accuracy79.17
42
Code ReasoningMBPP
Accuracy94.55
26
Math ReasoningAIME25
Accuracy70.42
25
Agentic ReasoningBFCL v4 (non-live and live)
Accuracy86.45
6
Coding ReasoningHumanEval
Accuracy (%)96.34
4
Coding ReasoningLeetCode-Contest
Accuracy (%)66.11
4
Mathematics ReasoningGSM8K
Accuracy96.36
4
Mathematics ReasoningMATH500
Accuracy (%)97.6
4
STEM ReasoningGPQA Diamond
Accuracy61.62
3
Agentic ReasoningZebraArena multi-turn (Small)
Accuracy96.69
2
Showing 10 of 12 rows

Other info

GitHub

Follow for update