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: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.
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.
arXiv:2602.02427v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant breakthroughs across various domains, but they can still produce unreliable or misleading ou...
arXiv:2602. 05395v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A simple strategy for improving LLM accuracy, especially in math and reasoning problems, is to sample multiple responses and submit the answer most consistently reached.
arXiv:2607. 11089v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.
arXiv:2606. 11211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment.
arXiv:2509.24711v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's ope...
The paper investigates why large reasoning models (LRMs) lose safety alignment when faced with harmful queries. By analyzing token-level refusal dynamics, the authors identify a vulnerability called Onset Refusal Collapse (ORC), where the refusal signal drops sharply at the first generated token, leading to unsafe responses. They introduce SafeToken, a lightweight inference-time intervention that injects a learned safety anchor at reasoning onset, which mitigates ORC, improves safety on harmful-query benchmarks, and largely preserves reasoning utility.
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. 11713v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world applications of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often require reasoning about changing prompts or environments.
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. However, these models often exhibit "computational overthinking," generating redundant reasoning steps that increase latency and cost without improving accuracy.