2026-01-19 10:38:45

MIT CSAIL recently released a paper on recursive language model (RLM), which has attracted considerable attention. This research, published at the end of 2025 on (arXiv:2512.24601) by the team of Alex L. Zhang, Tim Kraska, and Omar Khattab, addresses a very interesting core question: when you want to enhance a model's reasoning ability and internal coherence, how can it be done more elegantly?

The paper adopts a quite clean engineering approach, directly targeting the core issue. The potential of recursive structures in handling complex reasoning chains has always been promising, but how to achieve a real leap in capability while maintaining model stability seems to offer new ideas this time. Such technological breakthroughs could have a potential impact on the reasoning boundaries of the entire LLM ecosystem—whether it’s for DeFi smart contract verification or other applications requiring deep logical reasoning.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DeFiDoctor

· 6h ago

Looking at the recursive structure... Stability risks need to be regularly reviewed; otherwise, once complications in the reasoning chain occur, the costs outweigh the benefits. --- Verifying DeFi contracts is a good point, but actual gas cost data should be considered; just logical reasoning alone is useless. --- A clean engineering solution sounds good, but the question is whether this set of tools can truly reduce protocol code risks or if it's just another PPT revolution. --- Expanding reasoning ability... Hmm, I suggest conducting a health assessment report after implementation, so it's not just theoretical papers versus practical applications. --- Academic circles are always superficial when it comes to model stability. DeFi has suffered enough losses to understand what risk warning really means. --- Technological breakthroughs are one thing, but I care whether this thing can be directly used for precise contract vulnerability diagnosis; everything else is just talk. --- Just from the title, you can tell it's probably another overhyped package. If it were really capable, the ecosystem would have already changed.

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 6h ago

Recursive models are back again, it feels like there's a new paper every month for us to follow. Who is actually using these things? Recursive structures sound sexy, but what about stability... Can they really run? DeFi contract verification? Let's fix the current bugs first, and not create new problems again. Why does this paper have no open-source code? Just talking about elegance is useless. Both MIT and top-tier teams, why does it feel like nothing is actually implemented? Breaking through inference boundaries... Every time it's the same talk, but gas fees are still expensive, bro.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinArbitrageur

· 6h ago

ngl, recursive inference scaling is genuinely interesting from a risk-adjusted returns perspective... if the latency overhead doesn't obliterate your execution window on-chain. have they actually benchmarked gas implications or just the math on paper?

Reply0

GhostAddressHunter

· 6h ago

Recursive models are indeed interesting. If DeFi contract verification can really rely on this breakthrough, that would be awesome.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoPunster

· 6h ago

Recursive, recursive, recursive, it sounds very advanced, but honestly it's just burning computing power to play tricks. MIT and top teams are involved again. Can this time truly prevent my smart contracts from liquidation? They've published a bunch of papers, but I only care about whether they can help me judge the right timing to buy the dip more accurately. "Elegant" reasoning? I just want to know if I can elegantly avoid the next rug pull. The more these experts talk about stability, the more I feel I need to be cautious. They said the same last time. Feels like another "valley of death" from academic papers to practical applications. Keep going, everyone.

View OriginalReply0