arXiv AI By Henry Arthur

Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study examines how the effort expended by large reasoning models (LRMs) compares to that of humans during abductive reasoning tasks. By analyzing reaction times and reasoning traces, the authors find that LRMs and humans exhibit similar patterns of effort and error types. They also demonstrate that decoding strategies allowing models to explore multiple reasoning paths further align the models’ reasoning costs with human effort.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 21

Rewarding Efficient Reasoning Improves Abstention on Underspecified Tasks in Reasoning Models

The paper introduces a new reward, GRPO, that encourages large reasoning models (LRMs) to efficiently determine whether a task is solvable before generating a full chain of thought. Fine‑tuning 4B LRMs with this reward improves their ability to abstain from answering unanswerable prompts by an average of 12.8% while producing 44% shorter chains of thought. The approach also preserves the models’ overall answering performance.

By Polina Tsvilodub, Max H\"oth, Michael Franke, Bj\"orn Deiseroth, Carina Kauf
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
Sep 10

Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?

The paper investigates whether reasoning representations—explanations for large language model outputs—aid humans in evaluating those outputs. A controlled human study tested six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, measuring structural understanding, error detection, and trust calibration. Results revealed a mismatch: participants favored planning- and decomposition-based representations, yet simpler chain-of-thought traces better supported verification, trust, and interpretability, while preferred formats increased calibration risks.

By Jaewoo Lim, Sungbok Shin, Sanghyun Hong
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Don't Overthink, Don't Underthink: Toward Adaptive Reasoning in Agentic AI

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