Paired runs of the same question at matched reasoning horizons across 198 GPQA Diamond and 500 MMLU-Pro questions are evaluated, finding that a tight deadline can favor lower effort or a concise instruction, whereas allowing high effort to finish can recover higher final accuracy.
Abstract
Large language models often reason at length before answering, increasing cost and latency. Prompts and trained settings can shorten this reasoning, but a shorter trace may only show that the model stopped sooner. Here, we evaluate paired runs of the same question at matched reasoning horizons across 198 GPQA Diamond and 500 MMLU-Pro questions. We test a numeric/concision prompt that announces a token limit for Qwen3-14B and the trained effort settings of gpt-oss-20b and -120b. The Qwen prompt shortens reasoning traces by 12-17%, while accuracy changes at matched token limits are small and mixed. A concise/early-answer instruction raises MMLU-Pro accuracy by 3.8 percentage points at 512 tokens, including +2.7 points when both runs are unfinished. Its gain at 2,048 tokens is uncertain. For gpt-oss, candidate-logit answers from completed low- and medium-effort reasoning are 14.5-26.3 points more accurate than matched-horizon high-effort answers. Most of the 512-token advantage comes from lower effort finishing earlier, while differences among unfinished runs are smaller and mixed. Wrong early answers often concentrate probability on the chosen option, so earlier stopping does not uniformly improve probability quality. In these tests, a tight deadline can favor lower effort or a concise instruction, whereas allowing high effort to finish can recover higher final accuracy. Evaluations should report correct completion before a deadline, the answer obtained when a run is stopped, differences among unfinished runs, and probability assigned to the correct answer separately.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large reasoning models (LRMs) on complex tasks but often produces long, redundant traces. Recent training-free early-exit methods shorten these traces by choosing an intermediate point to stop reasoning. We study one such strategy that injects an end-of-think token (EoT,) at this point to trigger the reasoning-to-answering transition, and find that the injected EoT does not always induce a clean answering phase. Answering-phase generation can continue before the model regenerates another EoT, with the span preceding this regenerated EoT scaling with the reasoning tokens saved by early exit and exhibiting continued reasoning behavior. We call this spurious CoT termination, where reasoning-like generation continues into the answering phase. We hypothesize that insufficient attention to the injected EoT contributes to spurious CoT termination and probe this hypothesis with Exit-token Attention Biasing (EAB). Across four LRMs, five benchmarks, and two early-exit methods, increasing attention to the injected EoT reduces spurious CoT termination and answering-phase length. These results reveal a limitation of controlling LRMs by externally matching their explicit think-block format. Inserting the EoT token conforms to this format but does not by itself guarantee the intended reasoning-to-answering transition. Our code is available at https://github.com/Seunghee-Koh/Spurious-CoT-Termination.
Seunghee Koh, Sungjae Choi, Minchan Kwon et al.· 0 citations
The results show that QA evaluation should account for how inferential relations compose across a reasoning trace, rather than relying only on final answers or LLMs as verifiers.
Guneet Singh Kohli, Yuxiang Zhou, M. Schlichtkrull et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
An observability ladder is introduced that holds each completed run fixed and varies only what a reader inspects to judge whether the answer is correct: the response, a self-summary the model writes from the trace, the trace itself, and internal signals, each with and without the prompt.
A. Algaba, Francesca Carlon, Lynn Delcon et al.· 0 citations
Reason Popper-ly, a neurosymbolic framework that uses inductive logic programming (ILP) to learn relation composition rules from reasoning traces and deploys them as an online verifier for step-level correction, consistently improves terminal accuracy over standard CoT.
ThinkRetrieve is proposed, a test-time scaling framework that augments the reasoning traces of LRMs with dynamically retrieved solved examples at each reasoning step, providing the model with guidance on how to reason rather than merely what facts are relevant.
Transparent educational question answering asks for answers that are not only correct but explainable, and doing so with small models rules out the reasoning power of the largest proprietary systems. The EXACT 2026 competition poses this problem concretely: open-weight language models of at most 8B parameters, self-hosted, with a natural-language explanation for every answer. It pairs two tasks: logical reasoning over university regulations, and multi-step physics problem solving. We describe the system that team \cotu{} developed to address both, a neuro-symbolic Program-of-Thought pipeline in which a 4B backbone writes a program rather than stating an answer directly: for regulation queries it emits a Z3 encoding whose entailment verdict grounds the deduction, and for physics it emits numerical Python, both wrapped in a shared self-correction loop and a unified explained-JSON output. Answer-type routing, distillation-based task fine-tuning, and a latency-aware serving stack -- SGLang with speculative decoding -- keep the system within the 60-second per-query limit. The system achieved a \textbf{perfect score} on the physics task in both automated selection rounds and obtained the \textbf{highest final-round technical score} of any team -- $13.44/15$, combining automated answer evaluation with expert-judged reasoning depth -- with the equally weighted presentation score included, \cotu{} placed 3rd overall. Grounding answers in a symbolic solver yields correct, verifiable deductions at the 4B scale, and the residual difficulty lies in premise selection rather than the deduction itself.
Quoc-Khang Tran, M. Nguyen, P. Thai et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
