Organizations: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China · College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China · Didichuxing Co. Ltd, Beijing, China
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has substantially empowered Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle complex reasoning tasks, yet the verbose nature of explicit reasoning steps incurs prohibitive inference latency and computational costs, limiting real-world deployment. While existing compression methods - ranging from self-training to Reinforcement Learning (RL) with length constraints - attempt to mitigate this, they often sacrifice reasoning capability for brevity. We identify a critical failure mode in these approaches: explicitly optimizing for shorter trajectories triggers rapid entropy collapse, which prematurely shrinks the exploration space and stifles the discovery of valid reasoning paths, particularly for challenging questions requiring extensive deduction. To address this issue, we propose Compress responses for Easy questions and Explore Hard ones (CEEH), a difficulty-aware approach to RL-based efficient reasoning. CEEH dynamically assesses instance difficulty to apply selective entropy regularization: it preserves a diverse search space for currently hard questions to ensure robustness, while permitting aggressive compression on easier instances where the reasoning path is well-established. In addition, we introduce a dynamic optimal-length penalty anchored to the historically shortest correct response, which effectively counteracts entropy-induced length inflation and stabilizes the reward signal. Across six reasoning benchmarks, CEEH consistently reduces response length while maintaining accuracy comparable to the base model, and improves Pass@k relative to length-only optimization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Accuracy–length trade-off in reasoning compression: shorter responses can come at the cost of accuracy and reduced policy entropy.
Figure 2. The pipeline of our method. The model accuracy is evaluated via GRPO rollouts, and the optimal length is obtained from correct responses. Length penalties are applied only to correct responses when current accuracy exceeds historical accuracy, while entropy regularization is used for questions whose accuracy falls below the average to encourage exploration.
Model Name
GSM8K
MATH500
AIME24
AMC
OlymBench
AIME25
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
Qwen2.5-7B-Ins
90.9
279.0
0.3
74.2
567.0
17.24
12.0
1016.0
72.46
47.5
801.0
42.0
39.2
827.0
37.85
7.6
1240.0
74.67
Qwen2.5-7B-Math
93.2
439.0
-1.84
63.4
740.0
27.33
19.0
1429.0
57.99
62.5
1022.0
25.41
31.5
1037.0
48.14
4.0
2562.0
77.99
Qwen2.5-7B-Math-Ins
95.2
323.0
-3.88
81.4
670.0
9.81
10.3
1363.0
74.23
60.0
1029.0
27.99
38.9
1027.0
37.69
9.3
2087.0
67.17
R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B*
91.2
1479
–
91.3
3701
–
50.6
10382
–
86.9
5646
65.5
7413
–
36.7
10958
–
+ ThinkSwitcher
92.5
1389.0
-0.35
91.3
3495.0
0.0
48.3
7936.0
2.21
–
–
–
57.0
5147.0
7.17
37.5
6955
-1.32
Table 1. Performance comparison across mathematical benchmarks. Bold indicates the best score for each metric, and the accuracy in grey denotes the second-best score. Here, “ ”: prompting methods, “ ”: offline methods, “ ”: online methods. “ ∗ ” indicates results reproduced or re-evaluated in this study.
Figure 3. Training dynamics of policy entropy for R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B under different length penalty coefficients. (Left: Maximum-entropy loss ( CEEH -ME); Right: Entropy-based advantage ( CEEH -EA)).
Model Name
GSM8K
MATH500
AIME24
AMC
OlymBench
AIME25
Base Model
97.8
97.2
80
97.5
81.8
63.3
Length-Penalty
97.6
97
76.7
97.5
81.8
63.3
CEEH -EA
98.1
97.2
80
97.5
82.4
63.3
CEEH -ME
98.3
97.2
80
97.5
82.2
70
Table 2. Pass@ k performance of different methods trained from R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B. Pass@ k is computed using 16 rollouts per question.
Figure 4. Training accuracy on the same dataset, with R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B as the base model.
Figure 5. Distribution of response token counts on AMC23, with R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B as the base model.
Figure 6. The dynamics of response length during training with R1-Distill-Qwen2.5-7B as the base model. (Left: Maximum-entropy loss ( CEEH -ME); Right: Entropy-based advantage ( CEEH -EA).
Model Name
MATH500
AIME24
AIME25
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
ACC
LEN
NAG ↓
Base Model
91.3
3701
–
50.6
10382
–
36.7
10958
–
EA with η = 0.1
91.7
2170
-1.36
53.5
7543
-10.96
37.1
8327
-2.22
EA with η = 0.2
91.2
1870
0.16
50.6
7172
0.0
36.9
8241
-1.09
ME with η = 0.1
92.1
2170
-1.36
53.8
6824
-10.8
36.3
7311
1.89
ME with η = 0.2
91.4
2003
-0.16
51.7
6658
-3.63
36.5
7142
0.91
Table 3. Performance under different length penalty coefficients.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter Name
Value
advantage estimator
grpo
training batch size
512
max prompt length
2048
max response length
20480
ppo mini batch size
32
ppo micro batch size per gpu
2
Appendix
Table 4. Main Parameters of the VERL Training Framework
Parameter Name
Value
validation batch size
256
validation temperature
0.6
top_p
0.95
rollout num per question
16
max prompt length
2048
max response length
16000
Appendix
Table 5. Validation Parameters of the VERL Training Framework
Model Name
GSM8K
MATH500
AIME24
AMC
OlymBench
AIME25
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
Ours (5 × )
85.8
997
83.6
2497
29.8
7713
72.3
4044
44.7
4693
24.0
7350
2 ×
85.7
946
83.7
2454
29.4
7480
73.0
3924
44.1
4864
23.2
7137
10 ×
86.2
1079
84.1
2827
31.5
7845
73.3
4480
44.9
4797
24.8
7596
Appendix
Table 6. Ablation results with different entropy multipliers.
EMA
GSM8K
MATH500
AIME24
AMC
OlymBench
AIME25
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
Ours (0.2, 0.05)
85.8
997
83.6
2497
29.8
7713
72.3
4044
44.7
4693
24.0
7350
(0.1, 0.01)
85.6
1099
84.2
2511
28.8
7704
75.2
4654
45.0
4653
23.1
7862
(0.4, 0.1)
85.7
1066
84.5
2323
29.6
7893
71.4
4774
44.0
5058
20.8
7996
Appendix
Table 7. Ablation results with different EMA rates.
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC
OlymBench
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
ACC
LEN
Base
11.8
219
27.5
1321
15.5
2650
9.6
2504
Ours (ME)
77.5
195
43.0
274
20.6
268
11.0
246
Appendix
Table 8. Ablation results on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct.