arXiv AI

To Think or Not to Think: Allocating Reasoning Where It Helps

The paper introduces CARE, a contrastive accuracy reward estimation method that adaptively adjusts reasoning length for large language models. By comparing beneficial length adjustments from online sampled responses, CARE applies adaptive length rewards within Group Relative Policy Optimization without extra hyperparameters or inference cost. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks show that CARE improves Pass@1 by up to 4% while reducing reasoning length by 37%, achieving higher token efficiency.

arXiv AI
Aug 21

Learning When to Think: Adaptive Reasoning for Test-Time Compute Allocation

arXiv:2608. 20256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning language models trained with reinforcement learning typically operate under a fixed token budget rather than an explicitly adaptive one, which can lead to over-computation on easy problems and insufficient computation on difficult ones.

By Gijs Kassenaar, Zhao Yang, Vincent Fran\c{c}ois-Lavet
arXiv AI
Jun 30

Reconsidering Overthinking: Penalizing Internal and External Redundancy in CoT Reasoning

arXiv:2508. 02178v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) often exhibit overthinking, producing verbose Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces that increase inference cost and obscure the underlying reasoning process.

By Taihang Zhen, Jialiang Hong, Kai Chen, Guang Yang, Junlan Feng, Wenpeng Zhu, Jing Huo, Yang Gao, Depeng Wang, Haitao Wan, Xi Yang, Fanyu Meng, Yuyao Zhang, Ji Qi, Xiangyu Zhou
arXiv AI
Sep 7

Extremely Sparse Supervision Incentivizes Reasoning Ability

The paper reports that in on‑policy distillation for large language models, reasoning performance can be improved by supervising only a tiny fraction of generated tokens—sometimes just one or two tokens per reasoning trajectory, about 0.05% of all tokens. This sparse supervision consistently matches or exceeds full‑token training across nine teacher‑student setups on mathematical reasoning, and is also validated on coding reasoning, Llama models, and PPO‑based reinforcement learning with verifiable reward. The findings suggest that effective post‑training does not require token‑intensive supervision and may align more closely with natural learning processes that focus on critical reasoning steps.

By Zhishuai Liu, Xingzi Xu, Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Pan Xu, Karim Bouyarmane
arXiv AI
Sep 18

When2Think: Learning Difficulty-Aware Length Control for Efficient Hybrid Reasoning Models

When2Think introduces a post‑training framework that dynamically allocates reasoning depth in Large Reasoning Models based on instance difficulty. The method uses Instance‑level Difficulty‑Aware Control (IDAC) to shape rewards with pre‑computed accuracy and token usage statistics, enabling stable, critic‑free optimization without learned reward models. Experiments on mathematical benchmarks show that When2Think improves accuracy‑efficiency trade‑offs, achieving higher Pass@3 scores while reducing token usage compared to baseline models.

By Jaejun Shim, HyunJin Kim, Young Jin Kim, JinYeong Bak
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Boosting LLM Reasoning via Human-Inspired Reward Shaping

The paper introduces T2T (Thickening-to-Thinning), a dynamic reward framework for large language models that mimics human learning by separating exploration and consolidation phases. During incorrect attempts, T2T encourages exploration to broaden the search space, while after correct solutions it applies length penalties to promote concise reasoning. Experiments on mathematical benchmarks across five mainstream LLMs show that T2T outperforms standard GRPO and recent baselines, improving overall reasoning performance.

By Wenze Lin, Zhen Yang, Xitai Jiang, Xiaoteng Ma, Gao Huang
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 15

Towards Efficient Large Language Reasoning Models via Extreme-Ratio Chain-of-Thought Compression

arXiv:2602. 08324v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning successfully enhances the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it incurs substantial computational overhead for inference.

By Yuntian Tang, Bohan Jia, Wenxuan Huang, Lianyue Zhang, Jiao Xie, Wenxi Li, Wei Li, Jie Hu, Xinghao Chen Rongrong Ji, Shaohui Lin