Settle: Learning When to Stop Reasoning
Reasoning models often continue generating after their answers have settled. Settle learns when to stop from answer stability in completed traces. It trains the existing end-of-reasoning token while k...
Reasoning models often continue generating after their answers have settled. Settle learns when to stop from answer stability in completed traces. It trains the existing end-of-reasoning token while k...
arXiv:2604. 04930v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large reasoning models rely on long chain-of-thought generation to solve complex problems, but extended reasoning often incurs substantial computational cost and can even degrade performance due to overthinking.
arXiv:2606. 30852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning models spend different amounts of useful computation across instances, but it remains unclear when a learned stopping rule improves over simple confidence or convergence thresholds.
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.
The paper introduces StreamStop, a lightweight stopping policy for reasoning-enabled language model agents that learns offline from prefix-level action agreement. By encoding available reasoning text with a frozen prefix reader and a stop head, StreamStop can decide when to stop reasoning without needing internal signals from the model. Experiments on WebShop and ScienceWorld show that StreamStop achieves higher success rates than many fixed-budget baselines while using fewer reasoning tokens, notably reducing token usage by 42% on WebShop with Qwen3.8-27B.
arXiv:2608. 00422v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers, making response-level uncertainty estimation important for abstention, human review, and adaptive compute allocation.
The paper investigates a training‑free early‑exit technique that inserts an end‑of‑think (EoT) token to terminate chain‑of‑thought (CoT) reasoning in large reasoning models. It finds that the injected EoT often fails to cleanly switch the model from reasoning to answering, leading to continued reasoning‑like generation—termed spurious CoT termination—whose length scales with the amount of reasoning saved. By increasing attention to the EoT token through Exit‑token Attention Biasing (EAB), the authors reduce spurious termination and shorten the answering phase across multiple models and benchmarks.
arXiv:2510. 19990v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reasoning paradigm, where language models reason before answering, has enabled breakthroughs on tasks such as mathematical problem-solving.
arXiv:2602. 13935v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While LLMs have seen substantial improvement in reasoning capabilities, they also sometimes overthink, generating unnecessary reasoning steps, particularly under uncertainty, given ill-posed or ambiguous queries.
arXiv:2610.19934v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Weight pruning can degrade the accuracy of large reasoning models (LRMs), yet it remains unclear whether it damages reasoning itself. We find that much...
arXiv:2606. 25524v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) reach high accuracy in mathematical reasoning, but individual traces on the same problem diverge; some arrive at the correct answer while others fail.
The paper investigates whether self-consensus—stopping a reasoning model when its partial trajectory’s answers agree—can safely reduce inference cost. A large sweep of 3,520 consensus rules on two models and three benchmarks failed to meet predefined safety criteria, while a boundary‑confidence control (DEER) succeeded. The study shows that agreement signals that an answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that reasoning has finished, leading to premature stops and missed corrections even when token savings are significant.