The paper introduces RATIO, a framework for improving quantized reasoning models by identifying overthinking tokens and applying token-specific penalties. It uses Quantization-aware Reasoning Behavior Analysis to detect problematic tokens and Token-Specific Penalty Determination to assign penalties without extra training. Experiments show RATIO outperforms existing methods, boosting accuracy by up to 9.8 points and shortening chain-of-thought length by up to 51.3%.
By Chengzhu Bao, Xianglong Yan, Tianao Zhang, Jiaqi Chen, Shaoqiu Zhang, Yulun Zhang
arXiv:2606. 00206v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to deploy large language models efficiently, but its effect on reasoning models is not well understood.
By Sanae Lotfi, Polina Kirichenko, Steven Li, Zechun Liu
arXiv:2605.06165v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) accelerates, token consumption from intermediate reasoning traces increasingly contribut...
By Richmond Sin Jing Xuan, Rishabh Bhardwaj, Soujanya Poria
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) rely on long reasoning traces, making inference expensive. While low-bit quantization reduces per-token decoding cost, we show that aggressive 2-bit inference can fail to deliver end-to-end speedup because instability in the generation process inflates total token count.
arXiv:2606. 02011v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) rely on long reasoning traces, making inference expensive.
By Ekaterina Alimaskina, Darya Rudas, Denis Shveykin, Gleb Molodtsov, Pavel Vasiliev, Aleksandr Beznosikov
arXiv:2609.26708v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Quantization-aware distillation (QAD) restores much of the short-form question-answering performance lost to sub-3-bit quantization, yet leaves mathema...
By Yuanteng Chen, Zhilei Liu, Peisong Wang, Yuantian Shao, Chuangyi Li, Weining Wang, Shuang Qiu, Gang Li, Jing Liu, Jian Cheng
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
By Daeyeop Lee, Hwanjo Yu
arXiv:2511. 05722v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-5 and Gemini 3 have pushed the frontier of automated reasoning and code generation.
By Zheng Du, Hao Kang, Song Han, Tushar Krishna, Ligeng Zhu
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: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
The paper argues that large language models need adaptive reasoning rather than fixed reasoning budgets. It shows that over‑reasoning leads to high computational cost without accuracy gains, while under‑reasoning results in incorrect or incomplete solutions. The authors evaluate these failure modes on MATH‑500 and the GAIA benchmark, highlighting the need for dynamic reasoning allocation in agentic AI systems.
By Md Jueal Mia, M. Hadi Amini
The paper surveys efficient reasoning in large language models, contrasting fast intuitive (System 1) and slow deep (System 2) reasoning. It analyzes why System 2 is computationally costly yet more accurate, and why System 1 is efficient but less effective. The survey covers causes of inefficiency, patterns of reasoning behavior, and potential solutions to balance performance and computational budgets, offering actionable insights and an open‑source repository for ongoing research.
By Rui Wang, Hongru Wang, Boyang Xue, Jianhui Pang, Shudong Liu, Yi Chen, Jiahao Qiu, Derek Fai Wong, Heng Ji, Kam-Fai Wong