Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

RAG over Thinking Traces Can Improve Reasoning Tasks

Negar Arabzadeh, Wenjie Ma, Sewon Min, Matei Zaharia · May 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation. We challenge this assumption by showing that the limitation lies not in RAG itself, but in the choice of corpus. Instead of retrieving documents, we propose retrieving thinking traces, i.e., intermediate thinking trajectories generated during problem solving attempts. We show that thinking traces are already a strong retrieval source, and further introduce T3, an offline method that transforms them into structured, retrieval-friendly representations, to improve usability. Using these traces as a corpus, a simple retrieve-then-generate pipeline consistently improves reasoning performance across strong models and benchmarks such as AIME 2025--2026, LiveCodeBench, and GPQA-Diamond, outperforming both non-RAG baselines and retrieval over standard web corpora. For instance, on AIME, RAG with traces generated by Gemini-2-thinking achieves relative gains of +56.3%, +8.6%, and +7.6% for Gemini-2.5-Flash, GPT-OSS-120B, and GPT-5, respectively, even though these are more recent models. Interestingly, RAG on T3 also incurs little or no extra inference cost, and can even reduce inference cost by up to $15%$. Overall, our results suggest that thinking traces are an effective retrieval corpus for reasoning tasks, and transforming them into structured, compact, or diagnostic representations unlocks even stronger gains. Code available at https://github.com/Narabzad/t3.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

LiveCodeBench, MATH

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: LiveCodeBench, MATH
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation.
  • We challenge this assumption by showing that the limitation lies not in RAG itself, but in the choice of corpus.
  • Instead of retrieving documents, we propose retrieving thinking traces, i.e., intermediate thinking trajectories generated during problem solving attempts.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning LiveCodeBench and MATH.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.