Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance with sufficient computation, but they do not inherently know how much computation a task requires. We study budgeted inference-time reasoning for multiple problems under a strict global token constraint and formulate it as an Ordered Stochastic Multiple-Choice Knapsack Problem (OS-MCKP). This perspective highlights a meta-cognitive requirement---anticipating problem difficulty and allocating computation strategically. We propose ROI-Reasoning, a two-stage framework that endows LLMs with intrinsic, budget-aware rationality. First, Meta-Cognitive Fine-Tuning teaches models to predict reasoning cost levels and decide whether a problem is worth attempting before generation. Next, Rationality-Aware Reinforcement Learning optimizes sequential decision making under a hard token budget, allowing models to learn long-horizon allocation strategies. Experiments across mathematical reasoning, multiple-choice question answering, and code generation show that ROI-Reasoning improves scores and generally reduces reference-order regret under tight budgets, with up to a 417% relative score improvement over the strongest same-backbone baseline in mathematics.
Figures & tables
Method
Budget Control
Cost Estimate
Problem Skipping
Cross-Task Policy
Self-Refine
✗
✗
✗
✗
Budget Forcing
✓
✗
✗
✗
TALE-EP
✓
✓
✗
✗
Plan-and-Budget
✓
✓
✗
✗
ROI-Reasoning
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Capabilities relevant to reasoning across multiple problems under a shared token budget.
Figure 1: Overview of ROI-Reasoning. The top row illustrates the exam analogy; the bottom row shows MFT cost-level supervision and RARL policy optimization under a shared token budget.
Method
Score easy
Medium
Hard
1024
512
1024
512
1024
512
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Large-Scale Models
DeepSeek-V3.2 (685B)
1.85
1.53
1.33
0.28
0.88
0.42
0.87
0.53
0.49
0.68
GPT-4o-mini
1.53
1.19
1.41
0.08
0.65
0.45
1.27
0.17
0.32
0.73
Open-Source Models (1.5B–8B)
Table 2: Main results under shared 1024- and 512-token budgets. We report the easy-to-hard reference score (Score easy ), Score, and Reference-Order Regret. Each test paper contains three problems and has a maximum score of 3. For the Medium and Hard settings, the best and second-best values in each Score and Regret column are shown in bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 2: Token-length distributions by problem position under different difficulty levels and token budgets. The histograms compare the reasoning length patterns of Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct , Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct + MFT , and Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct + MFT + RARL under four distinct settings.
Variant
Stage 1
Stage 2
Medium
Hard
1024
512
1024
512
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
ROI-Reasoning
MFT
RARL
1.13
0.02
0.97
0.11
1.12
0.02
0.93
0.14
w/o RARL
MFT
–
0.98
0.03
0.82
0.09
0.95
0.04
0.81
0.10
w/o RARL, w/ Greedy
MFT
Greedy
0.97
0.04
0.83
0.15
0.96
0.04
0.83
0.15
w/o Cost Tags
RFT
Dr. GRPO
1.21
0.01
0.80
0.20
1.19
0.03
0.68
0.32
Table 3: Component ablation on Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct. MFT supervises cost levels; RARL rewards correct answers with cost-level agreement. RFT and Dr. GRPO use correctness-only objectives, while Greedy replaces RARL with external allocation. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results per column.
Figure 3: Composition of predicted-level outcomes (correct, under-, and over-estimated) under different budgets on Medium and Hard test papers, comparing MFT and MFT+RARL.
Figure 4: Cross-domain Score and Regret for same-backbone methods on MCQA and code generation under shared 512- and 256-token budgets.
N/B
Score (%, Medium / Hard)
Base
MFT
Ours
Unseen N
4/1024
18.66/14.87
32.91/30.37
39.49/37.23
4/1536
22.72/19.91
33.86/31.36
39.85/37.50
5/1024
16.37/12.64
31.71/27.82
40.56/35.39
5/1536
20.66/17.80
33.29/29.10
41.04/36.16
Table 4: Generalization to unseen sequence lengths and token budgets under uniform per-problem scoring. N/B denotes sequence length/token budget, and normalized scores are reported as Medium/Hard.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
MFT setting
Value
Backbone
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
Training
full-parameter SFT with LLaMA-Factory
Hardware
4× NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090
Precision
bf16
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
5×10−6
Appendix
Table 5: Main-experiment MFT configuration.
RARL setting
Value
Initialization
final MFT checkpoint
Framework / rollout engine
verl / vLLM
Hardware
4× NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 (one node)
Advantage estimator
Dr. GRPO
KL regularization / entropy coefficient
none / 0.0
PPO clipping coefficient / epochs
0.2 / 1
Appendix
Table 6: Main-experiment RARL configuration.
Figure 5: Structure of the ROI-Reasoning input prompt.
Method
Budget
Medium
Hard
P1
P2
P3
Score
P1
P2
P3
Score
DeepSeek-V3.2 (685B)
1024
0.60
0.45
0.28
1.33
0.32
0.29
0.26
0.87
512
0.48
0.29
0.11
0.88
0.19
0.17
0.13
0.49
GPT-4o-mini
1024
0.44
0.54
0.43
1.41
0.18
0.54
0.55
1.27
512
0.38
0.23
0.04
0.65
0.14
0.15
0.03
0.32
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
1024
0.26
0.27
0.21
0.74
0.09
0.20
0.26
0.55
Appendix
Table 7: Per-problem accuracy and overall score under different token budgets. We report accuracy for each problem position (P1–P3) and the resulting total score on Medium and Hard test papers.
Method
Score easy
Medium
Hard
512
256
512
256
512
256
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Large-Scale Models
DeepSeek-V3.2 (685B)
2.04
1.80
1.78
0.13
1.41
0.22
1.35
0.34
0.80
0.56
GPT-4o-mini
1.55
1.31
1.30
0.16
0.94
0.28
0.93
0.40
0.51
0.61
Open-Source Models (1.5B–8B)
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison on Multiple-Choice Question Answering under different difficulty levels and token budgets. We report Score (maximum =3 ), Score easy , and Reference-Order Regret on Medium and Hard test papers, each consisting of three questions, under 512-token and 256-token constraints. The best and second-best values in each Score and Regret column are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Paper Type
Accuracy(%)
Average Tokens
Easy
Medium
Hard
Easy
Medium
Hard
Easy Paper
38.54
27.34
14.36
49.2
46.0
44.6
Medium Paper
53.82
38.35
10.28
56.1
54.4
40.4
Hard Paper
61.55
46.63
9.94
58.6
58.6
37.9
Appendix
Table 9: Behavioral Analysis of MFT across different test paper orderings. By identifying and strategically curtailing effort on Hard questions early, the model reallocates saved tokens to dramatically boost the accuracy of Easy and Medium questions.
Method
Score easy
Medium
Hard
512
256
512
256
512
256
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Large-Scale Models
DeepSeek-V3.2 (685B)
2.03
1.81
1.96
0.03
1.64
0.09
1.85
0.09
1.57
0.13
GPT-4o-mini
1.61
1.21
1.59
0.01
1.10
0.09
1.77
-0.10
1.45
-0.20
Open-Source Models (1.5B–8B)
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison on Code Generation tasks under different difficulty levels and token budgets. We report Score (Pass@1, maximum =3 ), Score easy , and Reference-Order Regret on Medium and Hard test papers under 512-token and 256-token constraints. The best and second-best values in each Score and Regret column are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Method
Score easy
Medium
Hard
1024
512
1024
512
1024
512
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Score ↑
Reg. ↓
Large-Scale Models
DeepSeek-V3.2 (685B)
51.35
39.77
39.47
0.23
25.49
0.36
27.10
0.47
14.94
0.62
GPT-4o-mini
40.48
28.96
37.77
0.07
18.59
0.36
35.04
0.13
10.43
0.64
Open-Source Models (1.5B–8B)
Appendix
Table 11: Performance under heterogeneous score on mathematical reasoning. AIME, MATH, and GSM8K problems are assigned 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively, and scores are normalized to a 100-point scale. We report Score, Score easy , and Reference-Order Regret on Medium and Hard test papers under 1024-token and 512-token budgets. Best and second-best Score and Regret values are highlighted with bold and underlining .
Method
Medium
Hard
1024
1536
1024
1536
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Open-Source Models (1.5B–7B)
Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct
30.23
54.39
0.44
45.81
61.26
0.25
20.43
50.80
0.60
38.91
58.07
0.33
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
40.66
55.12
0.26
53.02
57.42
0.08
32.65
51.65
0.37
48.55
55.07
0.12
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct
29.04
47.90
0.39
39.18
52.55
0.25
21.38
45.08
0.53
32.27
49.95
0.35
Appendix
Table 12: Unseen- N generalization for N=4 after training with N=3 . Scores are normalized to a 0–100 scale. We report Score, Score easy , and Reference-Order Regret on Medium and Hard papers under 1024- and 1536-token budgets. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best Score and Regret, respectively.
Method
Medium
Hard
1024
1536
1024
1536
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Score ↑
Score easy
Regret ↓
Open-Source Models (1.5B–7B)
Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct
26.01
51.97
0.50
41.28
61.44
0.33
16.52
44.12
0.63
32.02
54.94
0.42
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
37.85
55.37
0.32
52.79
59.19
0.11
28.77
48.74
0.41
46.47
54.40
0.15
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B-Instruct
23.91
44.08
0.46
33.94
50.62
0.33
17.12
38.55
0.56
26.70
46.42
0.42
Appendix
Table 13: Unseen- N generalization for N=5 after training with N=3 . Scores are normalized to a 0–100 scale. We report Score, Score easy , and Reference-Order Regret on Medium and Hard papers under 1024- and 1536-token budgets. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best Score and Regret, respectively.
Scaling test-time compute via extended reasoning has become a key paradigm for improving the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing approaches optimize reasoning under fixed or uniformly sampled token budgets, ignoring the fundamental mismatch between problem difficulty and allocated compute. This leads to overthinking on easy problems and underthinking on hard ones, resulting in suboptimal token efficiency across diverse reasoning scenarios. In this paper, we propose Budget-Adaptive Curriculum Reasoning (BCAE), a unified framework that jointly optimizes reasoning quality and token efficiency through three synergistic components: (1) a budget-conditioned unified policy that embeds the token budget as a continuous conditioning signal, eliminating the need for decoupled thinking and summarization strategies; (2) a curriculum-aware budget scheduler that adaptively shifts the training budget distribution from easy to hard problems based on real-time learning progress; and (3) a truncation-aware dense reward mechanism that provides fine-grained credit assignment at intermediate reasoning steps via process-level verification. We further introduce Budget-Conditioned Advantage Estimation (BCAE), a novel variance reduction technique that conditions the advantage baseline on the sampled budget, yielding more stable policy gradients. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH, GSM8K, AIME, and Minerva Math) demonstrate that BACR consistently outperforms other strong baselines across all token budgets, achieving up to 8.3% accuracy improvement under tight budgets while reducing average token consumption by 34% compared to unconstrained reasoning.
Inference-time scaling has emerged as a critical avenue for enhancing Large Language Models' performance, yet real-world deployment is constrained by strict computational budgets. In this work, we formulate inference budget allocation as a global constrained optimization problem governed by economic principles. By modeling per-query reasoning utility with a shifted-surge function, we derive an optimal allocation policy based on a global shadow price that equilibrates marginal utility under resource scarcity. Based on this theory, we propose Constrained Latent-utility Equilibrium Allocation for Reasoning (CLEAR). It performs rational abandonment and reallocates resources from insolvent queries to solvable queries near their emergence thresholds. Extensive experiments on several reasoning tasks with different traffic streams demonstrate that CLEAR significantly improves the Pareto frontier of total token cost versus mean accuracy. In resource-scarce regimes, CLEAR achieves up to a 3x improvement in global accuracy compared to uniform allocation.
Xu Wan, Speed Zhu, Jianwei Cai +4
1Zhejiang University · 2Tecent HY Team · 3Peking University
Reasoning language models trained with reinforcement learning typically operate under a fixed token budget rather than an explicitly adaptive one, which can lead to over-computation on easy problems and insufficient computation on difficult ones. We study whether a model can learn to allocate its own reasoning effort by choosing, as the first token of its response, one of three modes: NoThink (answer as quickly as possible), Short (brief reasoning), or Long (extended reasoning). The choice is learned inside Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with no separate router, through a shaped reward that makes each mode worthwhile at a different response length, together with hard per-mode token caps that keep the modes distinct. On a 1.5B distilled model trained on MATH, the three modes emerge without collapsing to a single choice, and the brief modes end up more accurate than Long, which shows that the router sorts problems by difficulty rather than at random. Averaged over three seeds, the resulting policy stays close to the base model's accuracy on the held-out MATH500 (0.782 vs.\ 0.796) while cutting the mean response length from 4,796 to 2,811 tokens (a 41% reduction). Interestingly, it also transfers to other benchmarks without retraining, with the largest savings where problems are easier, with for instance 76% token reduction on GSM8K and at higher accuracy than the baselines at similar response length. In short, we build a reasoning model that adaptively chooses how much to reason for each problem.