Let Me Think! A Long Chain-of-Thought Can Be Worth Exponentially Many Short Ones

Parsa Mirtaheri, Ezra Edelman, Samy Jelassi, Eran Malach, Enric Boix-Adsera
5/27/2025
cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL

No official code found. Best implementation: seyedparsa/let-me-think (4 stars, MIT, last commit 2025-05-31).

Abstract

Inference-time computation has emerged as a promising scaling axis for improving large language model reasoning. However, despite yielding impressive performance, the optimal allocation of inference-time computation remains poorly understood. A central question is whether to prioritize sequential scaling (e.g., longer chains of thought) or parallel scaling (e.g., majority voting across multiple short chains of thought). In this work, we seek to illuminate the landscape of test-time scaling by demonstrating the existence of reasoning settings where sequential scaling offers an exponential advantage over parallel scaling. These settings are based on graph connectivity problems in challenging distributions of graphs. We validate our theoretical findings with comprehensive experiments across a range of language models, including models trained from scratch for graph connectivity with different chain of thought strategies as well as large reasoning models.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

MIT

Let Me Think! A Long Chain-of-Thought Can Be Worth Exponentially Many Short Ones

40Shell, PythonJan 15, 20251 years agoMIT

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{mirtaheri2025think,
  title  = {Let Me Think! A Long Chain-of-Thought Can Be Worth Exponentially Many Short Ones},
  author = {Parsa Mirtaheri and Ezra Edelman and Samy Jelassi and Eran Malach and Enric Boix-Adsera},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2505.21825},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21825v1},
  journal = {NEURIPS 2025 2025}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2505.21825.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2505.21825)

Discussion