Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Not All Queries Need Deep Thought: CoFiCot for Adaptive Coarse-to-fine Stateful Refinement

Dongxu Zhang, Hongqiang Lin, Yiding Sun, Pengyu Wang, Qirui Wang, Ning Yang, Jihua Zhu · Mar 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Long Horizon
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox. Allocating identical resources leads to over-correction on simple tasks and insufficient refinement on complex ones. To address this, we propose CoFiCot, a coarse-to-fine adaptive framework that dynamically tailors inference strategies to problem difficulty. Specifically, we implement a multi-metric classifier that triages queries by synthesizing semantic entropy, consensus reliability, and predicted reasoning depth . This enables a differentiated refinement stage that applies efficient aggregation for simple queries while routing complex ones to a context-aware correction loop . We formalize correction as a stateful sequential propagation process , where each repair is strictly conditioned on the verified history of prior rectifications. By integrating Process Reward Models (PRMs) within this state-dependent trajectory, CoFiCot effectively bridges the gap between granular error localization and global logical coherence, preventing the context fragmentation typical of stateless refinement methods.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox."

Reported Metrics

partial

Coherence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"By integrating Process Reward Models (PRMs) within this state-dependent trajectory, CoFiCot effectively bridges the gap between granular error localization and global logical coherence, preventing the context fragmentation typical of stateless refinement methods."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory (inferred)
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

coherence

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Scaling test-time computation enhances LLM reasoning ability but faces a uniform computation paradox.
  • Allocating identical resources leads to over-correction on simple tasks and insufficient refinement on complex ones.
  • To address this, we propose CoFiCot, a coarse-to-fine adaptive framework that dynamically tailors inference strategies to problem difficulty.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • 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

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address this, we propose CoFiCot, a coarse-to-fine adaptive framework that dynamically tailors inference strategies to problem difficulty.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: coherence

Related Papers

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

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now