arXiv AI

Routes of Reasoning: Reading and Reshaping Test-Time Compute in MoE Models

The paper introduces a method to control reasoning behaviors in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models by labeling sentence-level segments with six distinct reasoning behaviors (planning, execution, restatement, fact, reflection, and conclusion). Linear probes on MoE router logits can predict these behaviors nearly as accurately as probes on the full hidden state, enabling the authors to edit router scores during inference to reduce overthinking. This intervention cuts generated tokens by a median of 30.4% (up to 63.3%) across multiple models and benchmarks without significant loss in accuracy, and often improves it.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

Beyond the Trace: Coupling an Interpretable Reasoning-State Readout to Native MoE Routing

The paper introduces a two‑level internal readout for mixture‑of‑experts reasoning models. First, it compresses the model’s reasoning states into a 64‑axis semantic frame (J64) that reveals process states not captured by the emitted trace, improving held‑out AUC by 0.096–0.135. Second, it reconstructs this frame from native expert‑routing statistics (R64), achieving high correlation with J64 and preserving most of its predictive gain while enabling low‑overhead, test‑time decision making and improved routing policies.

arXiv AI
Aug 19

Beyond the Trace: Coupling an Interpretable Reasoning-State Readout to Native MoE Routing

The paper introduces a two‑level readout for mixture‑of‑experts reasoning models. First, it compresses the model’s internal reasoning states into a 64‑dimensional semantic frame (J64) that reveals process dynamics beyond the emitted trace. Second, it reconstructs this frame from native expert‑routing statistics (R64), achieving high correlation and preserving most predictive gains while enabling low‑overhead, test‑time decision making.

By Kang Chen, Sihan Zhao, Yixin Cao, Yugang Jiang
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

TRACES: Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost-Efficient Early-Stopping

TRACES (Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost‑Efficient Early‑Stopping) is a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps of large‑language models in real time, enabling adaptive, cost‑efficient early stopping during inference. By monitoring the types of steps generated, the method identifies when models shift their reasoning after arriving at a correct answer, allowing for interpretable stopping criteria. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, GSM8K, AIME) and knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) show token reductions of 20–50% while preserving accuracy, with more conservative thresholds needed for harder tasks such as BeyondAIME and IMO AnswerBench.

By Yannis Belkhiter, Seshu Tirupathi, Giulio Zizzo, John D. Kelleher
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Constructing Pareto Frontiers of Optimal Reasoning Termination Methods for Overthinking in Reasoning Models

The paper introduces Step-wise Truncation Probing (STP) to measure overthinking in reasoning models by generating answers from multiple retained prefixes along a fixed reasoning trajectory. It defines Overthinking Ratio and Accuracy Degradation to quantify the impact of continued reasoning beyond the point of maximum accuracy. Using STP data, the authors construct token‑accuracy Pareto frontiers for various termination strategies and present OTBench, a benchmark that aggregates 70.5 B reasoning tokens across six models and four benchmark groups.

By Weixin Guan, Liang Li, Shiyu Xie, Jiapeng Liu, Bing Li, Peng Fu, Chengyang Fang, Xiaoshuai Hao, Can Ma, Weiping Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Recursive Agentic Reasoning

The paper proposes a unified framework for test‑time reasoning methods, framing them as recursion operators—GROW, PRUNE, and BRANCH—applied to an agent’s reasoning trace. Experiments across five benchmarks and three frontier models show that BRANCH, which samples and selects among multiple reasoning paths, consistently outperforms the other operators and a single‑pass chain‑of‑thought baseline, improving accuracy by an average of 5.98 percentage points. The study also highlights the importance of paired evaluation and careful handling of scoring‑pipeline failures, as these factors can significantly alter comparative outcomes.

By Shengxin Zhang, Xiaomin Wu, Xiyang Wu, Jing Xie