pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00482 · v1 · pith:BC63RH4Gnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.CL

Know When to Stop: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for Reducing Overthinking

Chia-Hsuan Lee , Sihui Dai , Mingyang Zhou , Isha Slavin , Shi-Xiong Zhang , Sambit Sahu , William Campbell This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 13:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords overthinkingreasoning modelssegment-level credit assignmentself-reflectionmath benchmarksadvantage shapingdrift detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

DASH assigns segment-level credit using drift from intermediate answers to reduce overthinking in reasoning models.

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

Reasoning language models frequently produce extended traces filled with hedging, approach changes, and self-contradictions that consume tokens without raising final accuracy. The paper establishes that these unproductive behaviors appear more often in incorrect traces than correct ones, even when response length is held constant. It identifies intermediate answer commitments as a free proxy: comparing each candidate answer in the trace to the ground truth reveals whether later reflection moves closer to correctness. DASH applies this signal to shape advantages at the segment level, rewarding segments that reduce distance to the correct answer and penalizing those that increase it. On competition math benchmarks where overthinking is common, this yields higher accuracy together with fewer wasted reflections.

Core claim

By comparing each intermediate answer candidate in the reasoning trace to the ground truth, one can label whether subsequent reflection is productive; DASH uses these labels to assign segment-level advantages that favor segments drifting toward correctness and disfavor those drifting away, producing models that overthink less and solve more problems correctly.

What carries the argument

Drift-aware advantage shaping at the segment level, where drift is measured by whether an intermediate answer commitment matches the final correct answer.

If this is right

  • Achieves 50.8% accuracy on AIME25 versus 45.4% for GRPO
  • Reduces rates of overthinking behaviors such as hedging and self-contradiction
  • Produces more productive self-correction than length-controlled or standard RL baselines

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same intermediate-commitment signal could be used to train models that internalize early stopping without needing ground truth at inference time
  • Segment-level drift shaping may transfer to non-math domains where partial answers can be checked against an external verifier
  • Finer credit assignment of this form could complement existing length penalties in reasoning RL

Load-bearing premise

Intermediate answer commitments within reasoning traces can provide a cheap proxy for whether subsequent reflection is productive without any additional supervision.

What would settle it

Training a model with DASH and then measuring whether the rate of unproductive self-reflection on held-out AIME problems remains as high as in GRPO-trained models would falsify the claim that the segment credit signal improves reflection productivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00482 by Chia-Hsuan Lee, Isha Slavin, Mingyang Zhou, Sambit Sahu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sihui Dai, William Campbell.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of DASH. We decompose reasoning traces into segments bounded by intermediate answer checkpoints. Segments leading to correct answers (green) receive positive advantage; segments leading to incorrect answers (red) receive escalating negative advantage. Standard GRPO assigns uniform negative advantage to all tokens in an incorrect trace, discarding the structure within. that accuracy gains correspon… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overthinking signals in Nemotron-4B reasoning traces on AIME 2025 (960 traces, 32 per problem). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overthinking signal profile on AIME25. Each axis represents one of six linguistic signals, nor￾malized to [0, 1]. Smaller area = less overthinking. DASH achieves the lowest or near-lowest values on five of six signals while attaining the highest accu￾racy (50.8% avg@32). The sole elevated signal— contradiction (s4)—reflects productive self-monitoring (§D). 5.2 Overthinking Signal Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Accuracy vs. self-correction rate on AIME [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full breakdown of overthinking signals in Nemotron-4B reasoning traces on AIME 2024 and 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AIME25 Problem 20 (answer = 293). Left: GRPO cycles through 8 blind substitutions ( red ) without diagnosing the geometric misconfiguration, truncating at 61K chars. Right: DASH encounters 4 contradictions ( blue ), reasons about each, resolves the tangency configuration at 59%, and reaches the answer in 34K chars (43% shorter). H Artifact Licenses We list below the licenses of the scientific artifacts use… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: KL divergence and entropy over training. DASH maintains the lowest KL divergence, achiev￾ing length reduction through targeted credit assign￾ment rather than aggressive policy deviation. GRPO + Brevity Bonus exhibits entropy collapse (→0.21); stan￾dard GRPO shows gradually increasing entropy and KL. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reasoning language models frequently overthink: generating extended chains of behaviors such as hedging, approach abandonment, and self contradiction that consume tokens without improving answers. We show that these behaviors are not merely a consequence of length; even when controlling for response length, incorrect traces exhibit higher rates of unproductive self-reflection than correct ones. Addressing this requires identifying where self-reflection helps vs hurts, but obtaining these step-level annotations is costly. We observe that intermediate answer commitments within reasoning traces can provide a cheap proxy: by comparing each final answer candidate in the trace to the ground truth, we can determine whether subsequent reflection is productive without any additional supervision. Building on this insight, we propose DASH (Drift Aware advantage SHaping), which assigns segment-level credit based on whether each reasoning segment leads toward or away from correctness. On competition-level math benchmarks, DASH achieves the highest accuracy where overthinking is prevalent (AIME25: 50.8% vs. 45.4% GRPO) while reducing overthinking behaviors and achieving more productive self-correction than baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that reasoning LMs exhibit overthinking (hedging, approach abandonment, self-contradiction) even after length controls, and that intermediate answer commitments compared to ground truth provide a cheap proxy for labeling whether subsequent reflection segments are productive. It introduces DASH (Drift Aware advantage SHaping) to perform segment-level credit assignment based on this proxy, yielding 50.8% accuracy on AIME25 (vs. 45.4% GRPO) while reducing overthinking and improving self-correction.

Significance. If the proxy is reliable and the length-controlled comparisons hold, the work supplies a supervision-light mechanism for shaping advantages at the segment level, directly targeting unproductive reflection in long-chain reasoning. The reported gains on competition math benchmarks where overthinking is prevalent would be a concrete advance for efficiency in models that already use RL-style training.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / method description] The central proxy assumption—that an intermediate answer's match or mismatch to ground truth reliably labels whether the following reflection segment is productive—is load-bearing for the entire credit-assignment scheme, yet the abstract provides no quantitative validation of this proxy against any independent measure of productivity (e.g., human annotation or downstream answer improvement). A correct intermediate does not guarantee that further reflection is useless, and an incorrect one does not guarantee that reflection will be recoverable.
  2. [Abstract] The length-controlled comparison showing higher unproductive self-reflection in incorrect traces is stated as a key motivation, but without the full experimental details it is impossible to assess whether the controls (token budget, prompt, decoding) are sufficient to isolate the effect from other confounders.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The abstract reports point estimates (50.8% vs 45.4%) but does not mention variance, number of runs, or statistical significance; these should be added to the results section.
  2. [Method] Notation for DASH components (drift detection, advantage shaping) should be defined explicitly with equations rather than left descriptive.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / method description] The central proxy assumption—that an intermediate answer's match or mismatch to ground truth reliably labels whether the following reflection segment is productive—is load-bearing for the entire credit-assignment scheme, yet the abstract provides no quantitative validation of this proxy against any independent measure of productivity (e.g., human annotation or downstream answer improvement). A correct intermediate does not guarantee that further reflection is useless, and an incorrect one does not guarantee that reflection will be recoverable.

    Authors: We agree the proxy is central to DASH and that the abstract lacks explicit quantitative validation against independent measures. The manuscript demonstrates the proxy's utility via end-to-end gains (AIME25 accuracy and reduced overthinking), but to directly address the concern we will add a new analysis (e.g., correlation between proxy labels and observed answer improvement after reflection segments) and explicitly note the proxy's limitations in the revised abstract and discussion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The length-controlled comparison showing higher unproductive self-reflection in incorrect traces is stated as a key motivation, but without the full experimental details it is impossible to assess whether the controls (token budget, prompt, decoding) are sufficient to isolate the effect from other confounders.

    Authors: The length-controlled experiments, including specific token budgets, prompt templates, and decoding parameters, are detailed in Section 3.2 and Appendix A. We will revise the abstract to include a concise reference to these controls and ensure the main-text motivation section cross-references the appendix for full reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper defines its segment-level advantage signal via direct comparison of each intermediate answer candidate to external ground truth. This is an independent, externally supplied label rather than a quantity fitted from or defined in terms of the model's own predictions or prior outputs. Reported accuracy gains are measured on standard held-out competition benchmarks (AIME25 etc.) against baselines. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the supplied text that would reduce the central claim to a renaming or self-referential fit. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented physical entities; the only new construct is the DASH algorithm itself.

invented entities (1)
  • DASH (Drift Aware advantage SHaping) no independent evidence
    purpose: Segment-level credit assignment for reducing overthinking
    Proposed algorithm whose details are not expanded in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5734 in / 1223 out tokens · 24480 ms · 2026-07-02T13:29:45.711272+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Let's verify step by step , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  2. [2]

    2025 , url =

    Yi, Jingyang and Wang, Justin and Li, Sida , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  3. [3]

    Dai, Muzhi and Yang, Chenxu and Si, Qingyi , booktitle =

  4. [4]

    2024 , publisher =

    He, Chaoqun and Luo, Renjie and Bai, Yuzhuo and Hu, Shengding and Thai, Zhen and Shen, Junhao and Hu, Jinyi and Han, Xu and Huang, Yujie and Zhang, Yuxiang and Liu, Jie and Qi, Lei and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , booktitle =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  5. [5]

    2024 , publisher =

    Groeneveld, Dirk and others , booktitle =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  6. [6]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet , author =. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  7. [7]

    2023 , organization =

    American Mathematics Competitions (AMC) 8, 10A, 10B, 12A, 12B , author =. 2023 , organization =

    2023

  8. [8]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Self-contradictory Hallucinations of Large Language Models: Evaluation, Detection and Mitigation , author =. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  9. [9]

    Hugging Face Datasets , howpublished =

    Math-AI , title =. Hugging Face Datasets , howpublished =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  10. [10]

    Hugging Face Datasets , howpublished =

    Math-AI , title =. Hugging Face Datasets , howpublished =. 2026 , publisher =

    2026

  11. [11]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  12. [12]

    Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the

    Hendrycks, Dan and Burns, Collin and Kadavath, Saurav and Arora, Akul and Basart, Steven and Tang, Eric and Song, Dawn and Steinhardt, Jacob , booktitle =. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the

  13. [14]

    2024 , url =

    Learning to Reason with. 2024 , url =

    2024

  14. [15]

    2024 , month = nov, url =

    2024

  15. [19]

    Efficiently Scaling

    Yichao Fu and Junda Chen and Siqi Zhu and Zheyu Fu and Zhongdongming Dai and Yonghao Zhuang and Yian Ma and Aurick Qiao and Tajana Rosing and Ion Stoica and Hao Zhang , booktitle=. Efficiently Scaling. 2026 , url=

    2026

  16. [21]

    Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems , pages=

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework , author=. Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems , pages=

  17. [22]

    2025 , eprint =

    Llama-Nemotron: Efficient Reasoning Models , author =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  18. [23]

    2026 , eprint =

    Circular Reasoning: Understanding Self-Reinforcing Loops in Large Reasoning Models , author =. 2026 , eprint =

    2026

  19. [25]

    2026 , eprint =

    Batched Contextual Reinforcement: A Task-Scaling Law for Efficient Reasoning , author =. 2026 , eprint =

    2026

  20. [30]

    2025 , eprint =

    Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt , author =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  21. [31]

    Understanding

    Liu, Zichen and Chen, Changyu and Li, Wenjun and Qi, Penghui and Pang, Tianyu and Du, Chao and Lee, Wee Sun and Lin, Min , booktitle =. Understanding. 2025 , url =

    2025

  22. [32]

    2025 , url =

    Yu, Qiying and Zhang, Zheng and Zhu, Ruofei and Yuan, Yufeng and Zuo, Xiaochen and Yue, Yu and Dai, Weinan and others , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  23. [33]

    2025 , howpublished=

    2025

  24. [34]

    2024 , howpublished=

    2024

  25. [36]

    2025 , url =

    Aggarwal, Pranjal and Welleck, Sean , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  26. [41]

    2025 , editor =

    Kazemnejad, Amirhossein and Aghajohari, Milad and Portelance, Eva and Sordoni, Alessandro and Reddy, Siva and Courville, Aaron and Le Roux, Nicolas , booktitle =. 2025 , editor =

    2025

  27. [42]

    Segment Policy Optimization: Effective Segment-Level Credit Assignment in

    Guo, Yiran and Xu, Lijie and Liu, Jie and Dan, Ye and Qiu, Shuang , booktitle =. Segment Policy Optimization: Effective Segment-Level Credit Assignment in. 2025 , url =

    2025

  28. [44]

    2025 , eprint =

    Dynamic Early Exit in Reasoning Models , author =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  29. [46]

    Thinkless:

    Fang, Gongfan and Ma, Xinyin and Wang, Xinchao , booktitle =. Thinkless:. 2025 , url =

    2025

  30. [50]

    Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=4jdIxXBNve L1 : Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning . In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language Modeling

    2025

  31. [51]

    AI-MO Team . 2024. NuminaMath 1.5 . https://huggingface.co/datasets/AI-MO/NuminaMath-1.5

    2024

  32. [52]

    Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Jianhui Pang, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Qiuzhi Liu, Mengfei Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.21187 Do NOT think that much for 2+3=? on the overthinking of o1-like LLM s . Preprint, arXiv:2412.21187

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [53]

    DeepSeek-AI . 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948 DeepSeek-R1 : Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLM s via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [54]

    Zenghao Duan, Liang Pang, Zihao Wei, Wenbin Duan, Yuxin Tian, Shicheng Xu, Jingcheng Deng, Zhiyi Yin, and Xueqi Cheng. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05693 Circular reasoning: Understanding self-reinforcing loops in large reasoning models . Preprint, arXiv:2601.05693

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [55]

    Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, and Xinchao Wang. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ariVQf0KZx Thinkless: LLM learns when to think . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2025

  36. [56]

    Yichao Fu, Junda Chen, Siqi Zhu, Zheyu Fu, Zhongdongming Dai, Yonghao Zhuang, Yian Ma, Aurick Qiao, Tajana Rosing, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2026. https://openreview.net/forum?id=nn51ewu5k2 Efficiently scaling LLM reasoning programs with certaindex . In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2026

  37. [57]

    Yiran Guo, Lijie Xu, Jie Liu, Ye Dan, and Shuang Qiu. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=9osvTOYbT4 Segment policy optimization: Effective segment-level credit assignment in RL for large language models . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2025

  38. [58]

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.211/ O lympiad B ench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AGI with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems . In Proceedings of...

    2024

  39. [59]

    Bairu Hou, Yang Zhang, Jiabao Ji, Yujian Liu, Kaizhi Qian, Jacob Andreas, and Shiyu Chang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01296 Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of LLM s via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2504.01296

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [60]

    Jian Hu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03262 REINFORCE++ : A simple and efficient approach for aligning large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2501.03262

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [61]

    Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Milad Aghajohari, Eva Portelance, Alessandro Sordoni, Siva Reddy, Aaron Courville, and Nicolas Le Roux. 2025. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/kazemnejad25a.html VinePPO : Refining credit assignment in RL training of LLM s . In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 267 of Proceedings of Mach...

    2025

  42. [62]

    Gang Li, Yan Chen, Ming Lin, and Tianbao Yang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04474 DRPO : Efficient reasoning via decoupled reward policy optimization . Preprint, arXiv:2510.04474

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [63]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2024. Let's verify step by step. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 39578--39601

    2024

  44. [64]

    Haolin Liu, Dian Yu, Sidi Lu, Yujun Zhou, Rui Liu, Zhenwen Liang, Haitao Mi, Chen-Yu Wei, and Dong Yu. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18984 Save the good prefix: Precise error penalization via process-supervised RL to enhance LLM reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2601.18984

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [65]

    Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=5PAF7PAY2Y Understanding R1-Zero-Like training: A critical perspective . In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language Modeling

    2025

  46. [66]

    Quanyu Long, Kai Jie Jiang, Jianda Chen, Xu Guo, Leilei Gan, and Wenya Wang. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03485 Self-verification dilemma: Experience-driven suppression of overused checking in LLM reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2602.03485

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [67]

    Math-AI. 2025. Aime24: Math reasoning benchmark. https://huggingface.co/datasets/math-ai/aime24

    2025

  48. [68]

    Math-AI. 2026. Aime25: American invitational mathematics examination 2025. https://huggingface.co/datasets/math-ai/aime25

    2026

  49. [69]

    Mathematical Association of America . 2023. https://maa.org/student-programs/amc/ American Mathematics Competitions (AMC) 8, 10A, 10B, 12A, 12B . Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC. Competitions aimed at middle and high school students

    2023

  50. [70]

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Cand \`e s, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1025 s1: Simple test-time scaling . In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2027...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1025 2025

  51. [71]

    Niels M \"u ndler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. 2024. Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  52. [72]

    NVIDIA . 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00949 Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models . Preprint, arXiv:2505.00949

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [73]

    Open R1 Team . 2025. OpenR1-Math-220k . https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/OpenR1-Math-220k. Apache 2.0 License

    2025

  54. [74]

    Keqin Peng, Liang Ding, Yuanxin Ouyang, Meng Fang, and Dacheng Tao. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23480 Revisiting overthinking in long chain-of-thought from the perspective of self-doubt . Preprint, arXiv:2505.23480

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [75]

    Charilaos Pipis, Shivam Garg, Vasilis Kontonis, Vaishnavi Shrivastava, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. 2025. Wait, wait, wait... why do reasoning models loop? arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.12895

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [76]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300 DeepSeekMath : Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models . Preprint, arXiv:2402.03300

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [77]

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. 2025. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 1279--1297

    2025

  58. [78]

    Jinyan Su, Jennifer Healey, Preslav Nakov, and Claire Cardie. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00127 Between underthinking and overthinking: An empirical study of reasoning length and correctness in LLM s . Preprint, arXiv:2505.00127

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [79]

    Hongze Tan, Zihan Wang, Jianfei Pan, Jinghao Lin, Hao Wang, Yifan Wu, Tao Chen, Zhihang Zheng, Zhihao Tang, and Haihua Yang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04349 GTPO and GRPO-S : Token and sequence-level reward shaping with policy entropy . Preprint, arXiv:2508.04349

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [80]

    Hieu Tran, Zonghai Yao, and Hong Yu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18314 Exploiting tree structure for credit assignment in RL training of LLM s . Preprint, arXiv:2509.18314

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [81]

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.510 Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce LLM s step-by-step without human annotations . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.510 2024

  62. [82]

    Xinyan Wang, Xiaogeng Liu, and Chaowei Xiao. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22016 ROM : Real-time overthinking mitigation via streaming detection and intervention . Preprint, arXiv:2603.22016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [83]

    Yining Wang, Jinman Zhao, Chuangxin Zhao, Shuhao Guan, Gerald Penn, and Shinan Liu. 2025 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06870 - GRPO : Unifying the GRPO frameworks with learnable token preferences . Preprint, arXiv:2510.06870

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [84]

    Yue Wang, Qiuzhi Liu, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang, Xingyu Chen, Zhiwei He, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Juntao Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. 2025 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18585 Thoughts are all over the place: On the underthinking of o1-like LLM s . Preprint, arXiv:2501.18585

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [85]

    Zihao Wei, Liang Pang, Jiahao Liu, Jingcheng Deng, Shicheng Xu, Zenghao Duan, Jingang Wang, Fei Sun, Xunliang Cai, Huawei Shen, and Xueqi Cheng. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.17627 Stop spinning wheels: Mitigating LLM overthinking via mining patterns for early reasoning exit . Preprint, arXiv:2508.17627

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [86]

    Guofu Xie, Yunsheng Shi, Hongtao Tian, Ting Yao, and Xiao Zhang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.02298 CAPO : Towards enhancing LLM reasoning through generative credit assignment . Preprint, arXiv:2508.02298

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [87]

    Bangji Yang, Hongbo Ma, Jiajun Fan, and Ge Liu. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02322 Batched contextual reinforcement: A task-scaling law for efficient reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2604.02322

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [88]

    Chenxu Yang, Qingyi Si, Yongjie Duan, Zheliang Zhu, Chenyu Zhu, Qiaowei Li, Minghui Chen, Zheng Lin, and Weiping Wang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15895 Dynamic early exit in reasoning models . Preprint, arXiv:2504.15895

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [89]

    Jingyang Yi, Justin Wang, and Sida Li. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=MJvwM5dBZM ShorterBetter : Guiding reasoning models to find optimal inference length for efficient reasoning . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2025

  70. [90]

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Weinan Dai, and 1 others. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=2a36EMSSTp DAPO : An open-source LLM reinforcement learning system at scale . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2025

  71. [91]

    Yu Yue, Yufeng Yuan, Qiying Yu, Xiaochen Zuo, Ruofei Zhu, Wenyuan Xu, Jiaze Chen, Chengyi Wang, Tiantian Fan, Zhengyin Du, Xiangpeng Wei, Xiangyu Yu, Gaohong Liu, Juncai Liu, Lingjun Liu, Haibin Lin, Zhiqi Lin, Bole Ma, Chi Zhang, and 8 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05118 VAPO : Efficient and reliable reinforcement learning for advanced reasoni...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [92]

    Shu Zhou, Rui Ling, Junan Chen, Xin Wang, Tao Fan, and Hao Wang. 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10739 When more thinking hurts: Overthinking in LLM test-time compute scaling . Preprint, arXiv:2604.10739

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026