A Score Is Not a Policy: Measuring the Value of Adaptive Revision
Tests when a hierarchical reasoner should revise the internal plan guiding its lower-level computation. Compares learned revision schedules with fixed schedules, separating whether a controller responds to its state from whether that response improves decisions.
First public: · Added to this list: October 18, 2026
Cite this paper
ArXiv preprint
arXiv:2609.00874 · Initial submission: 2026-09-01
A published-version citation has not been verified for this entry. This does not mean the paper is unpublished.
Choose the version you used. The arXiv link may serve a revision; check the original paper for the exact result, assumptions and limitations you cite.
Explore this approach
Analysis and evaluation — Measure how well these methods work, investigate what their internal computation does, and identify where they fail. This includes experiments, studies of model internals, and mathematical results.
Recurrent reasoning — Repeat parts of the model or keep intermediate information in memory while working through a problem. Some methods also learn how many passes to run.
Read or reuse this entry
Plain-text Markdown · JSON record · Find in the full list
Our summary and categories are a reading aid, not the authors’ abstract. Use the original paper for research claims. Suggest a correction.