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.
By Seunghee Koh, Sungjae Choi, Minchan Kwon, Sunghyun Baek, Junmo Kim
arXiv:2608. 15065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models produce diverse, sometimes inconsistent answers across repeated queries on the same problem, so multi-sample inference is a prerequisite for reliable deployment.
By Chanhee Park, Sungbin Han, Jeongho Yoon, Seongtae Hong, Heuiseok Lim
arXiv:2608. 03550v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains the standard baseline for evaluating models' reasoning abilities.
By Denys Pushkin, Albert Q. Jiang, Aryo Lotfi, Colin Sandon, Emmanuel Abb\'e
arXiv:2605. 24396v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute.
By Jingchu Gai, Guanning Zeng, Christina Baek, Chen Wu, J. Zico Kolter, Andrej Risteski, Aditi Raghunathan
arXiv:2606. 02835v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined.
By Simone Caldarella, Davide Talon, Rahaf Aljundi, Elisa Ricci, Massimiliano Mancini
arXiv:2606. 13603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is the dominant paradigm for inference-time scaling in language models, yet the causal influence of individual steps on the final answer poorly understood.
By Daniel Scalena, Sara Candussio, Luca Bortolussi, Elisabetta Fersini, Malvina Nissim, Gabriele Sarti