Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Efficient Reasoning Through Suppression of Self-Affirmation Reflections in Large Reasoning Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Suppressing low-confidence "wait" tokens trims reasoning output by 18.7% without hurting accuracy.

desk verdict A practical token-saving trick with a plausible but under-validated mechanistic story; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12353 v1 pith:NZ4VGVGC submitted 2025-06-14 cs.CL cs.AI

Kaiyuan Liu , Chen Shen , Zhanwei Zhang , Junjie Liu , Xiaosong Yuan , Jieping ye This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords self-affirmationreflectionefficientreasoningoutputlengthcompressionleading-wordprobabilitylargemodelstoken-levelinterventionoverthinkingreinforcementlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper identifies a specific source of wasteful tokens in large reasoning models: self-affirmation reflections, brief passages that restate or confirm already-correct reasoning steps. It argues that these reflections can be located at decoding time because their first word, especially "wait", is generated with noticeably lower probability than the leading words of other reflection types. The paper shows that setting low-probability "wait" tokens to zero suppresses self-affirmation reflections and shortens outputs, with train-free length reductions of 18.7%, 14.3%, 11.1%, 9.1%, and 8.4% across R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B/7B/32B, QwQ-32B, and Qwen3-32B at nearly unchanged or improved accuracy. It also integrates the same suppression into a reinforcement-learning training pipeline, reaching 50.2% length compression for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B while keeping performance competitive. A reader should care because the fix is a simple, architecture-free inference intervention that can be dropped into existing serving frameworks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the leading-word probability bias of self-affirmation reflections, distilled to a single intervention token: "wait". Reflection steps are detected by splitting generated solutions on blank lines and using Qwen2.5-72B to classify steps; self-affirmation reflections are those that affirm previous content. Statistical analysis of the first words of reflective sentences shows that "wait" in self-affirmation reflections has a lower average generation probability than in other reflections. The method sets the probability of low-confidence "wait" tokens to zero during decoding (train-free) or filters such tokens during rollouts (train-based), which suppresses the redundant reflection while leaving the rest of the reasoning chain intact.

What would settle it

Recompute the leading-word distributions on human-labeled self-affirmation reflections instead of judge-labeled ones; if the low-probability "wait" pattern disappears or reverses, the thresholding rule loses its foundation. A directly testable version is to measure the overlap of the two "wait" probability distributions on a model family and check whether the compression gain vanishes when the distributions are indistinguishable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that self-affirmation reflections, a frequent form of overthinking in reasoning models, carry a reliable signature in the token distribution: the probability of the first word of the reflection is lower than for other reflection types, and the "wait" token in particular shows a statistically distinct low-probability distribution. Exploiting this signature, the paper suppresses low-confidence "wait" tokens during generation, which removes many self-affirmation reflections without blocking necessary checkpoints because other high-probability words can still trigger needed reflections. In train-free experiments across five model checkpoints the intervention cut average output length while preserving or slightly improving accuracy; in train-based experiments the same suppression, applied selectively during rollout, produced markedly shorter outputs than the base reinforcement-learning method at comparable accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automated judge used to label reflection steps is reliable enough that the measured leading-word probability gap between self-affirmation and other reflections reflects a real property of the models rather than an artifact of the judge; the authors report only 80.6% accuracy on a 20-problem manual test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Suppressing low-probability "wait" tokens can be applied without training, cutting average output length by 18.7%, 14.3%, 11.1%, 9.1%, and 8.4% on R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B/7B/32B, QwQ-32B, and Qwen3-32B while preserving or slightly improving accuracy.
  • Incorporating the same suppression into a reinforcement-learning training pipeline reduces average length by 50.2% on R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B at comparable accuracy, and at equal length the suppressed model is more accurate.
  • The intervention works in existing inference frameworks because it only modifies decoding probabilities, and it extends to an out-of-domain graduate-level science benchmark with shorter outputs and competitive accuracy.
  • Threshold choice matters: aggressive thresholds that remove high-probability "wait" tokens degrade accuracy, indicating that some reflections are necessary, while moderate thresholds around 0.3 to 0.9 deliver compression without performance loss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same leading-token probability signature plausibly generalizes to other reflection triggers such as "alternatively" and "but", so a learned policy over multiple leading tokens could recover further compression without retraining.
  • The probability bias offers an inexpensive, on-the-fly signal of overthinking; serving frameworks could expose per-token confidence and let users trade a little accuracy for large length savings per request.
  • A testable extension is to apply the threshold intervention to non-mathematical reasoning tasks such as code generation or long-horizon planning; the paper's out-of-domain result is suggestive but does not establish that the bias is universal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a phenomenon it calls self-affirmation reflection: reflective steps in large reasoning models that affirm already-correct prior content, often after the correct answer has been reached. The authors report that these reflections are pervasive in both original and length-optimized reasoning models, and that their leading words (such as 'wait') have lower generation probability than leading words of other reflection types. They propose suppressing low-probability 'wait' tokens at inference time, reporting train-free output-length reductions of 18.7% for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and smaller reductions for 7B/32B versions, QwQ-32B, and Qwen3-32B, with roughly maintained accuracy. They also integrate the same suppression into a train-based RL method, EfficientReasoning, reporting a 50.2% length reduction for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B. The method is simple, architecture-free, and compatible with standard inference frameworks such as vLLM.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a remarkably cheap token-saving intervention for reasoning models: a probability-based suppression rule that requires no training or architectural change. The strength of the paper is its breadth of evaluation across five models and four in-domain datasets plus one out-of-domain set, and its demonstration that the intervention can be combined with an existing RL-based compression method. The paper also makes an honest attempt to document limitations and to compare with concurrent work, including Underthink and SEAL. However, the significance is currently conditional on resolving three load-bearing concerns: the reliability of the automated reflection labels that ground the statistical phenomenon, the degree to which thresholds are fitted to the evaluation data rather than predicted, and the ambiguity of the headline train-based compression figure. If those are resolved, the paper would be a useful step-level analysis of overthinking and a practical inference-time lever for reasoning length control.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Figures 5–6] The entire statistical foundation for the leading-word probability bias comes from steps labeled by Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, validated on only 20 problems with 80.6% accuracy. The paper does not report whether the labeler's errors are correlated with surface cues such as the leading word itself. Since the judge sees each step including its first token, a systematic tendency to label steps beginning with 'wait' as self-affirmation reflections could create the measured probability bias even if no such bias exists in the model's own generation distribution. Please provide an error analysis by leading word, report the confusion matrix on the manual test set, and ideally validate the probability-bias claim on a larger set of human-verified labels.
  2. [Table 1, §5.1.2] The claim that suppression 'reduces output length without degrading accuracy' is not supported uniformly by the reported numbers. For the headline R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B result at threshold 0.9, average accuracy drops from 64.9 to 64.2, and several other threshold/model combinations show larger drops. The thresholds are selected per model from the same evaluation data, so the reported compression ratios are partly fitted to the test set rather than predicted. Please report all thresholds with confidence intervals, use held-out threshold selection, or otherwise demonstrate that the accuracy differences are within sampling noise and that the chosen thresholds are not found by peeking at the reported results.
  3. [Table 2, §5.2.2] The abstract's '50.2%' train-based compression for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B is ambiguous. In Table 2, Ours(a=0.1) gives average length 3594.8 versus 7211.3 for the original model, which is approximately 50.2% shorter; however, compared with the EfficientReasoning baseline ER(a=0.05) at 4292.7, the reduction is only about 16%. If the headline compares against the original model, it does not isolate the contribution of the proposed suppression over the prior method, and the reader cannot tell which baseline is intended. Please state the comparison baseline explicitly and report both relative reductions.
  4. [Tables 3 and 4, §5.2.3] The train-based ablation selects both the suppression threshold and the intervention probability on the same datasets used for the final results, with no held-out validation. Given that Table 3 shows no monotonic relationship between threshold and length, and that the reported improvements are modest relative to the baseline variance, the risk of overfitting to the evaluation set is material. Please provide a validation split or a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the chosen settings generalize.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Figure 2] The abstract and Figure 2 contain typos: 'vLLM' appears as 'VLLM' in the abstract, and 'MATH500' appears as 'MATHS00' in Figure 2 and the table captions.
  2. [§4.1] The manual validation set of 20 problems is very small; a 20-problem binomial test implies a wide confidence interval around the 80.6% accuracy figure. Reporting the interval and the number of labeled steps would help the reader judge the reliability of the classifier.
  3. [§4.2] The sentence 'These findings curiously align with the probability distributions in Figure 6, suggesting that thresholds < 0.3 effectively suppress self-affirmation reflections' is inconsistent with the train-free results in Table 1, where the largest reported compression for R1-Distill-1.5B is at threshold 0.9. Please clarify which regime the threshold discussion refers to.
  4. [Table 3] The text says that at threshold 0.9 'performance improves due to increased length,' but Table 3 shows threshold 0.9 has average accuracy 65.5 and length 4389, while threshold 0.3 has accuracy 65.2 and length 3630. The difference may be noise, and the causal attribution to length is not supported by the table.
  5. [§A.2] The comparison with Underthink in Table 5 is useful, but the table would benefit from a clear statement of whether the same random seeds and sampling procedures were used for all methods, since length and accuracy can vary considerably across samples for these small test sets.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Thresholds are selected post hoc per model on the evaluation benchmarks, so the headline compression figures are partly fitted rather than predicted; the label/validation chain for self-affirmation reflections is internally consistent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1.2 (Table 1 and headline train-free results)]
    "As shown in Table 1, we evaluated the impact of different thresholds on performance. Our results indicate that an appropriate threshold can effectively reduce output length without compromising performance ... Specifically, it reduces average length by 18.7%, 14.3%, 11.1%, 9.1% and 8.4% for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B (Threshold-0.9), R1-Distill-Qwen-7B (Threshold-0.7), R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (Threshold-0.7), QwQ-32B (Threshold 0.7) and Qwen3-32B (Threshold 0.9), respectively."

    The thresholds are not fixed a priori or chosen on a held-out split; they are read off from the same Table 1 that reports the final numbers, with a different optimal threshold per model (0.9, 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9). The claimed reductions are therefore the selected best case of a grid search over thresholds on the evaluation datasets, not predictions of an untrained intervention. A quantity obtained by picking the threshold that maximizes compression on the test set is statistically forced, so the headline 18.7% (and the other train-free percentages) partly reduce to the selection procedure rather than to an independent effect. The QwQ-32B and Qwen3-32B rows provide partial out-of-sample support, but even there the threshold was selected per model on those same benchmarks.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (threshold 0.3 validation for train-based setting)]
    "For training-based scenarios, ablation studies identify optimal performance at a threshold of 0.3. These findings curiously align with the probability distributions in Figure 6, suggesting that thresholds < 0.3 effectively suppress self-affirmation reflections while having minimal impact on other reflection types."

    The 0.3 threshold is chosen from the train-based ablation (Table 3) on the same R1-Distill-1.5B model and datasets, and then this same downstream outcome is offered as evidence that the intervention specifically targets self-affirmation reflections. But Figure 6 was constructed from the Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct annotations that define the self-affirmation category (validated on only 20 problems at 80.6% accuracy). Thus the validation chain is: noisy judge labels define the target, the same labels produce the probability distribution, the ablation selects the threshold, and the agreement between the ablation and the distribution is presented as confirmation. Each link depends on the same annotation and the same test results, so the mechanistic support is not independent of the fitted threshold.

full rationale

The core mechanism is not circular by construction: the claim that self-affirmation reflections have lower-probability leading words is an empirical correlation measured from labeled steps, and suppressing low-probability 'wait' tokens could plausibly fail to preserve accuracy. The central evaluation is not a tautology. However, the paper selects its intervention threshold per model by inspecting the same benchmarks on which it reports compression, so the headline train-free reductions (18.7%, etc.) are partly fitted figures rather than out-of-sample predictions. The train-based 0.3 threshold is likewise chosen by ablation and then validated against a distribution built from the same noisy annotations, making the mechanistic confirmation internally consistent rather than independent. These issues are partially mitigated by the multi-model results (QwQ-32B and Qwen3-32B) and by the fact that the paper compares against Underthink and EfficientReasoning baselines; the work is not a pure self-citation or definitional tautology. We therefore assign 4: meaningful partial circularity through post hoc threshold selection, but the central phenomenon has independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method depends on a small set of manually chosen hyperparameters (thresholds and intervention probability) and on several domain assumptions about the reliability of the LLM judge and the transferability of the 'wait' probability signal across models. The invented conceptual entity 'Self-Affirmation Reflection' is supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence within the paper, so it is not a purely ad hoc construct.

free parameters (3)
  • wait suppression threshold (train-free) = 0.1-0.9; best-reported varies by model (0.9 for R1-Distill-1.5B, 0.7 for 7B/32B/QwQ, 0.9 for Qwen3)
    The threshold is swept over 0.1-0.9 and the most favorable length/accuracy trade-off per model is reported, so the compression figures are post-hoc selected rather than derived from a principled rule.
  • wait suppression threshold (train-based) = 0.3
    Selected from ablation in Table 3; the authors state 'ablation studies identify optimal performance at a threshold of 0.3'.
  • intervention probability in RL rollout = 0.25
    The 25% intervention rate is an approximation for 'positive samples only' since correctness is unknown at rollout time; ablation in Table 4 shows 25% gives the best average length/accuracy trade-off.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct can reliably classify reasoning steps as reflective and as self-affirming, with 80.6% accuracy on a 20-problem manual test set.
    Used in Section 4.1 to annotate all 500 training instances; if the judge is biased, the statistical distinction between self-affirmation and other reflections is unreliable.
  • domain assumption The first word of a reflective sentence ('leading word') is a sufficient and stable signal for detecting self-affirmation reflections.
    Section 4.1 restricts analysis to the first word and later acknowledges that typical leading words are sometimes multi-word (e.g., 'But wait'), so the feature is a simplification.
  • domain assumption Suppressing low-probability 'wait' tokens only removes self-affirmation reflections; other reflections, if needed, will re-emerge through other high-probability leading tokens.
    Section 4.2 acknowledges the risk but asserts compensatory mechanisms; this is an empirically untested assumption about generation dynamics.
  • domain assumption The probability distribution of 'wait' observed on R1-Distill-1.5B transfers to QwQ-32B and Qwen3-32B.
    The paper applies the same thresholding to other models without per-model re-estimation of the reflection distribution; Table 1 results assume transfer.
invented entities (1)
  • Self-Affirmation Reflection independent evidence
    purpose: A conceptual category of redundant reasoning step that affirms already-produced correct content, used to target token-level suppression.
    The paper provides examples (Figures 1 and 3), distributional statistics (Figures 5 and 6), and interventional results; it is not a physical entity, but it has measurable correlates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Reasoning Through Suppression of Self-Affirmation Reflections in Large Reasoning Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZ4VGVGC

@misc{pith2026250612353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Reasoning Through Suppression of Self-Affirmation Reflections in Large Reasoning Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZ4VGVGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12353}
}
read the original abstract

While recent advances in large reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable performance, efficient reasoning remains critical due to the rapid growth of output length. Existing optimization approaches highlights a tendency toward "overthinking", yet lack fine-grained analysis. In this work, we focus on Self-Affirmation Reflections: redundant reflective steps that affirm prior content and often occurs after the already correct reasoning steps. Observations of both original and optimized reasoning models reveal pervasive self-affirmation reflections. Notably, these reflections sometimes lead to longer outputs in optimized models than their original counterparts. Through detailed analysis, we uncover an intriguing pattern: compared to other reflections, the leading words (i.e., the first word of sentences) in self-affirmation reflections exhibit a distinct probability bias. Motivated by this insight, we can locate self-affirmation reflections and conduct a train-free experiment demonstrating that suppressing self-affirmation reflections reduces output length without degrading accuracy across multiple models (R1-Distill-Models, QwQ-32B, and Qwen3-32B). Furthermore, we also improve current train-based method by explicitly suppressing such reflections. In our experiments, we achieve length compression of 18.7\% in train-free settings and 50.2\% in train-based settings for R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B. Moreover, our improvements are simple yet practical and can be directly applied to existing inference frameworks, such as vLLM. We believe that our findings will provide community insights for achieving more precise length compression and step-level efficient reasoning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reconsidering Overthinking: Penalizing Internal and External Redundancy in CoT Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-penalty RL method that compresses chain-of-thought traces by separately penalizing internal semantic stagnation and external post-answer continuation reduces reasoning length by about 40% while preserving accur...

  2. Failure Cases Are Better Learned But Boundary Says Sorry: Facilitating Smooth Perception Change for Accuracy-Robustness Trade-Off in Adversarial Training

    cs.CV 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A paper whose abstract describes new adversarial training experiments, but whose full text is a different paper on CoT compression, leaving the claims unsupported.

  3. EDGE-GRPO: Entropy-Driven GRPO with Guided Error Correction for Advantage Diversity

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EDGE-GRPO reduces advantage collapse in GRPO by injecting reference solutions into response groups and scaling advantages by policy entropy, achieving competitive math reasoning with only 1K training samples.

  4. Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review that categorizes methods for shortening and adaptively triggering chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Wait" in Other Reflections (Histogram)

    ), }, wey 1, . [Wait, 0.769], but 343 is 7 * 49, which is 343, and 343 is less than 349, so 49 is correct. J. ). J. |. i]. . The previous steps: { strl } [Wait, 0.811], but 343 is 7 + 49, which is 343, and 343 is less than 349, so 49 is correct. [Wait, 0.855], but 343 is 7 * 49, which is 343, and 343 is less than 349, so 49 is correct. The initial step of...

    work page

  2. [4]

    Seal: Steer- able reasoning calibration of large language models for free

    Runjin Chen, Zhenyu Zhang, Junyuan Hong, Souvik Kundu, and Zhangyang Wang. Seal: Steer- able reasoning calibration of large language models for free. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07986,

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    Compressed chain of thought: Efficient reasoning through dense representations

    Jeffrey Cheng and Benjamin Van Durme. Compressed chain of thought: Efficient reasoning through dense representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13171,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Learning to route Ilms with confidence tokens

    Yu-Neng Chuang, Helen Zhou, Prathusha Sarma, Parikshit Gopalan, John Boccio, Sara Bolouki, and Xia Hu. Learning to route Ilms with confidence tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13284, 3,

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Energy considerations of large language model inference and efficiency optimizations

    Jared Fernandez, Clara Na, Vashisth Tiwari, Yonatan Bisk, Sasha Luccioni, and Emma Strubell. Energy considerations of large language model inference and efficiency optimizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17674,

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in Ilms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in Ilms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    arXiv

  8. [11]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space

    Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769,

    arXiv

Show all 37 references
  1. [12]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874,

    arXiv

  2. [13]

    A sober look at progress in language model reasoning: Pitfalls and paths to reproducibility

    Andreas Hochlehnert, Hardik Bhatnagar, Vishaal Udandarao, Samuel Albanie, Ameya Prabhu, and Matthias Bethge. A sober look at progress in language model reasoning: Pitfalls and paths to reproducibility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07086,

  3. [15]

    Openai ol system card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai ol system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning

    Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697,

    arXiv

  5. [17]

    Reward-guided speculative decoding for efficient Ilm reasoning

    Baohao Liao, Yuhui Xu, Hanze Dong, Junnan Li, Christof Monz, Silvio Savarese, Doyen Sahoo, and Caiming Xiong. Reward-guided speculative decoding for efficient Ilm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19324,

    arXiv

  6. [18]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050,

    arXiv

  7. [19]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437,

    arXiv

  8. [20]

    Ol-pruner: Length-harmonizing fine-tuning for ol-like reasoning pruning

    Haotian Luo, Li Shen, Haiying He, Yibo Wang, Shiwei Liu, Wei Li, Naiqiang Tan, Xiaochun Cao, and Dacheng Tao. Ol-pruner: Length-harmonizing fine-tuning for ol-like reasoning pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12570,

    arXiv

  9. [21]

    Cot-valve: Length-compressible chain-of-thought tuning

    Xinyin Ma, Guangnian Wan, Runpeng Yu, Gongfan Fang, and Xinchao Wang. Cot-valve: Length-compressible chain-of-thought tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09601,

    arXiv

  10. [22]

    sl: Simple test-time scaling

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candés, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. sl: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393,

    arXiv

  11. [23]

    Let’s think dot by dot: Hidden computation in transformer language models

    Jacob Pfau, William Merrill, and Samuel R Bowman. Let’s think dot by dot: Hidden computation in transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15758,

    arXiv

  12. [24]

    A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond

    Xiaoye Qu, Yafu Li, Zhaochen Su, Weigao Sun, Jianhao Yan, Dongrui Liu, Ganqu Cui, Daizong Liu, Shuxian Liang, Junxian He, et al. A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21614,

  13. [25]

    Rethinking reflection in pre-training

    Darsh J Shah, Peter Rushton, Somanshu Singla, Mohit Parmar, Kurt Smith, Yash Vanjani, Ashish Vaswani, Adarsh Chaluvaraju, Andrew Hojel, Andrew Ma, et al. Rethinking reflection in pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04022,

    arXiv

  14. [26]

    Dast: Difficulty-adaptive slow-thinking for large reasoning models

    Yi Shen, Jian Zhang, Jieyun Huang, Shuming Shi, Wenjing Zhang, Jiangze Yan, Ning Wang, Kai Wang, and Shiguo Lian. Dast: Difficulty-adaptive slow-thinking for large reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04472,

  15. [27]

    Codi: Compressing chain-of-thought into continuous space via self-distillation

    Zhenyi Shen, Hanqi Yan, Linhai Zhang, Zhanghao Hu, Yali Du, and Yulan He. Codi: Compressing chain-of-thought into continuous space via self-distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21074,

    arXiv

  16. [29]

    Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, , and Jason Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261,

    arXiv

  17. [31]

    Harnessing the reasoning economy: A survey of efficient reasoning for large language models

    Rui Wang, Hongru Wang, Boyang Xue, Jianhui Pang, Shudong Liu, Yi Chen, Jiahao Qiu, Derek Fai Wong, Heng Ji, and Kam-Fai Wong. Harnessing the reasoning economy: A survey of efficient reasoning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24377,

    arXiv

  18. [32]

    Thoughts are all over the place: On the underthinking of ol-like Ilms

    Yue Wang, Qiuzhi Liu, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Xingyu Chen, Zhiwei He, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Juntao Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, et al. Thoughts are all over the place: On the underthinking of ol-like Ilms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18585,

    arXiv

  19. [33]

    Gpt-40 system card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-40 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276,

    arXiv

  20. [34]

    Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in Ilms

    Heming Xia, Yongqi Li, Chak Tou Leong, Wenjie Wang, and Wenjie Li. Tokenskip: Controllable chain-of-thought compression in Ilms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12067,

  21. [35]

    Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less

    Silei Xu, Wenhao Xie, Lingxiao Zhao, and Pengcheng He. Chain of draft: Thinking faster by writing less. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18600,

    arXiv

  22. [36]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115,

    arXiv

  23. [37]

    Demystifying long chain-of-thought reasoning in Ilms

    Edward Yeo, Yuxuan Tong, Morry Niu, Graham Neubig, and Xiang Yue. Demystifying long chain-of-thought reasoning in Ilms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03373,

    arXiv

  24. [44]

    Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models

    Yang Sui, Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Jiamu Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Jiayi Yuan, Hongyi Liu, Andrew Wen, Hanjie Chen, Xia Hu, et al. Stop overthinking: A survey on efficient reasoning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16419,

    arXiv

  25. [2021]

    Sketch-of-thought: Efficient lm reasoning with adaptive cognitive-inspired sketching

    Simon A Aytes, Jinheon Baek, and Sung Ju Hwang. Sketch-of-thought: Efficient lm reasoning with adaptive cognitive-inspired sketching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05179,

  26. [2022]

    Kimi k1.5: Scaling reinforcement learning with Ilms

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1.5: Scaling reinforcement learning with Ilms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599,

    arXiv

  27. [2023]

    How well do Ilms compress their own chain-of- thought? a token complexity approach

    Ayeong Lee, Ethan Che, and Tianyi Peng. How well do Ilms compress their own chain-of- thought? a token complexity approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01141,

    arXiv

  28. [2024]

    Confident or seek stronger: Exploring uncertainty-based on-device Ilm routing from benchmarking to generalization

    Yu-Neng Chuang, Leisheng Yu, Guanchu Wang, Lizhe Zhang, Zirui Liu, Xuanting Cai, Yang Sui, Vladimir Braverman, and Xia Hu. Confident or seek stronger: Exploring uncertainty-based on-device Ilm routing from benchmarking to generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04428,

    arXiv

  29. [2025]

    Program synthesis with large language models

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.