arXiv:2608. 07885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning modes of language models outperform their non-reasoning counterparts on multi-step agentic tasks, but pay a 3-6x premium in output tokens on every episode -- much of it spent re-deriving procedures that are shared across episodes of the same domain.
By Agamdeep Singh, Srishti Gautam, Priyanshu Gupta, Nikita Mehrotra, Tanmay Bakshi, Sumit Gulwani
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
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
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
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:2606. 04402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern reasoning models can allocate different amounts of test-time computation, such as thinking tokens, model calls, or compute budget, to different tasks.
By Jingbo Wen, Liang He, Ziqi He