Not All Queries Need Deep Thought: CoFiCot for Adaptive Coarse-to-fine Stateful Refinement

Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity. Verifier-based selection offers an alternative, but its performance depends on the calibration of an external reward model. We propose a verifier-free breadth--depth refinement framework that uses test-time compute to both explore and improve candidate solutions. The method samples multiple independent reasoning rollouts, refines each rollout through iterative self-critique and self-correction, and aggregates the refined answers by majority voting. Breadth preserves diverse initial attempts, while depth repairs local reasoning errors before aggregation. Across AIME24, AIME25, AMC, OlympiadBench, and MATH500, our method consistently improves over greedy decoding, majority voting, verifier-based best-of-$N$, beam search, and lookahead decoding across multiple open-weight models. For instance, with Qwen2.5-1.5B, accuracy increases from the strongest verifier-based baseline to $58.0\%$ on MATH500, and from $25.0\%$ to $32.5\%$ on AMC. These results show that test-time compute can be more effective when used to refine sampled trajectories rather than only to sample more candidates or rely on verifier-guided selection.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced LLM reasoning, yet often incurs substantial computational overhead due to "overthinking": generating excessively long rationales without commensurate accuracy gains. Existing efficiency methods typically apply uniform compression, which overlooks a critical observation that reasoning complexity is heterogeneous at two distinct granularity: across different problems and within individual reasoning steps. This motivates our principle of Thinking Economically: intelligently allocating computational resources based on intrinsic task and step demands rather than pursuing uniform brevity. We propose Hierarchical Adaptive Budgeter (HAB), a training framework that operationalizes this principle through coarse-to-fine budgeting. At the inter-step level, HAB predicts the optimal reasoning depth for each problem. At the intra-step level, HAB learns step-specific token budgeting signals from PPL-derived step comparisons and an adaptive Pareto optimization objective that captures the local quality-efficiency trade-off, while a Fisher Information-based pruner further provides fine-grained training-time guidance, thereby encouraging the generator to internalize more economical reasoning patterns. Experiments on GSM8K and MATH500 show that HAB not only surpasses standard CoT in accuracy but also reduces token usage, achieving a stronger performance-efficiency trade-off than the compared baselines.

Extending CoT through RL has been widely used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. However, due to the sparsity of reward signals, it can also induce undesirable thinking patterns such as overthinking, i.e., generating redundant intermediate reasoning content. In this work, we argue that a major source of such redundancy is inefficient reflection, which often manifests in two problematic patterns: Indiscriminate Reflection, where the model performs broad, low-impact checks throughout reasoning, and Repetitive Reflection, where it repeatedly re-verifies an already established conclusion. To address this, we introduce a graph-based CoT optimization framework. Specifically, we convert each linear CoT into a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with explicit dependency edges, and design a dual pruning strategy: branch-level pruning removes weakly contributing reflection branches, while depth-level pruning eliminates late-stage re-verification. We distill this behavior via a three-stage pipeline: (1) SFT to initialize the policy on pruned concise traces, (2) DPO to prefer correct but less redundant trajectories, and (3) GRPO with length penalty to jointly optimize answer correctness and efficiency. Experiments show that our approach reduces the average reasoning tokens by 42% while maintaining or improving accuracy.