Large reasoning models rely on long chain-of-thought generation to solve complex problems, but extended reasoning often incurs substantial computational cost and can even degrade performance due to overthinking. A key challenge is determining when the model should stop reasoning and produce the final answer. In this work, we study the confidence of intermediate answers during reasoning and observe two characteristic behaviors: correct reasoning trajectories often reach high-confidence answers early, while incorrect rollouts tend to produce long, unproductive reasoning traces and exhibit less reliable confidence dynamics. Motivated by these observations, we propose CoDE-Stop (Confidence Dynamics Early Stop), an early stopping method that leverages the dynamics of intermediate answer confidence to decide when to terminate reasoning, requiring no additional training and easily integrating into existing models. We evaluate CoDE-Stop on diverse reasoning and science benchmarks across multiple models. Compared to prior early stopping methods, it achieves a more favorable accuracy-compute tradeoff and reduces total token usage by 25-50% compared to standard full-length reasoning. In addition, we provide analyses of confidence dynamics during reasoning, offering insights into how confidence changes in both correct and incorrect trajectories.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Accuracy vs. compute cost on Qwen3-4B averaged over 4 reasoning and science benchmarks. Left: reasoning length only. Right: total token compute including intermediate answer-generation overhead. CoDE-Stop achieves a stronger accuracy–compute tradeoff among early stopping methods.
Figure 2: Confidence dynamics across reasoning trajectories. Correct trajectories reach high confidence early, while incorrect trajectories exhibit unstable and fluctuating confidence.
Figure 3: Incorrect trajectories are longer and exhibit a heavy-tailed distribution.
Figure 4: Confidence and degeneration dynamics over reasoning steps. Left : Average confidence for correct and incorrect rollouts; confidence increases even for incorrect cases, while early steps provide better separation. Right : Average degeneration score DK ; incorrect rollouts consistently exhibit higher values, with the gap increasing over time.
Figure 5: Performance of CoDE-Stop against different baselines across multiple benchmarks. CoDE-Stop consistently reduces inference cost while maintaining comparable performance to the baselines, making it Pareto optimal.
Figure 6: Performance of CoDE-Stop with different prompting baselines. CoDE-Stop can be combined with various prompting strategies to further improve performance.
Figure 7: CoDE-Stop reduces unnecessary computation on incorrect rollouts compared to baselines at matched accuracy.
Figure 8: Ablation of degeneration score functions: vi (left) and wi (right)
Figure 9: Threshold sensitivity: τ controls a smooth accuracy–compute tradeoff.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: Qualitative Example 1.
Figure 11: Qualitative Example 2.
Model
Method
AIME24,25
MATH500
GSM8K
GPQA-Diamond
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Qwen3-4B
Vanilla
69.1
16326
100.0
16326
94.0
5210
100.0
5210
94.8
2306
100.0
2306
55.8
9536
100.0
9536
78.4
8344
100.0
8344
Think or Not
56.7
14130
86.5
27343
80.8
3768
72.3
6497
87.4
1618
70.2
2462
54.1
6865
72.0
10371
69.8
6595
75.3
11668
DEER
68.1
13115
80.3
13400
93.7
3803
73.0
3878
94.8
1374
59.6
1400
53.0
6412
67.2
6496
77.4
6176
70.0
6294
EAT
61.7
13995
85.7
14489
89.0
3642
69.9
3789
94.6
2092
90.7
2161
49.0
6459
67.7
6670
73.6
6547
78.5
6777
RCPD
68.7
16325
100.0
16960
91.9
4994
95.9
5211
94.7
2140
92.8
2264
55.8
9424
98.8
9825
77.8
8221
96.9
8565
Appendix
Table 1: Main results comparing CoDE-Stop with baseline methods across models and benchmarks (B=32768). Acc denotes accuracy, Tok denotes average reasoning tokens, CR denotes compression rate, and Cost denotes total token compute.
Model
Method
AIME24,25
MATH500
GSM8K
GPQA-Diamond
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
CR ↓
Cost ↓
Qwen3-4B
Vanilla
62.6
12509
100.0
12509
93.4
4921
100.0
4921
95.2
2236
100.0
2236
55.9
9204
100.0
9204
76.8
7218
100.0
7218
Think or Not
62.6
12515
100.0
19721
80.3
3490
70.9
5702
88.2
1555
69.5
2374
53.0
6621
71.9
9271
71.0
6045
78.1
9267
DEER
61.9
10666
85.3
10756
93.2
3666
74.5
3720
95.2
1379
61.7
1405
53.5
6406
69.6
6467
76.0
5529
72.8
5587
EAT
59.0
11437
91.4
11726
89.8
3635
73.9
3767
94.8
2037
91.1
2103
49.9
6599
71.7
6785
73.4
5927
82.0
6095
RCPD
58.9
12509
100.0
13011
91.0
4718
95.9
4927
95.2
2073
92.7
2193
55.9
9105
98.9
9503
75.2
7101
96.9
7408
Appendix
Table 2: Results with B=16384. Hyperparameters were tuned on AMC23 and transferred to the presented benchmarks, in the same manner as the main results.
Model
AMC23
GSM8K
MATH500
GPQA
AIME
Qwen3-4B
9.6
2.5
5.4
12.6
14.4
Qwen3-14B
2.0
5.3
12.5
15.7
DeepSeek-R1-Llama-8B
7.5
8.3
22.3
70.4
98.8
Llama-3.1-8B
8.1
2.2
4.7
11.9
15.8
Appendix
Table 3: Average number of reasoning steps across models and benchmarks.
δ=10−1
δ=10−3
δ=10−5
δ=10−7
(Acc, Cost)
(20.0, 2037)
(55.0, 9425)
(70.0, 10441)
(70.0, 11381)
Appendix
Table 4: Performance of EAT on a subset of AIME for different values of δ .
AIME
MATH500
GSM8K
GPQAD
Method
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
vanilla
68.70%
16329
94.10%
5210
94.80%
2306
55.20%
9638
think_or_not ( α=0.2 )
68.70%
31706
94.20%
9581
94.80%
3846
55.60%
14924
think_or_not ( α=0.4 )
56.70%
27343
80.80%
5211
87.40%
2462
54.10%
10371
Appendix
Table 5: We compare the performance of the Think-or-Not ( Yong et al., 2025 ) baseline with different entropy thresholds ( α ) with Qwen3-4B. The Vanilla performance values are provided as a reference. We observe that α=0.2 is a very conservative choice; we use α=0.4 in the main experiments.
AIME
MATH500
GSM8K
GPQAD
Delimiter
Method
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
Acc.
Cost
Wait
DEER
68.10%
13400
93.70%
3878
94.80%
1400
53.00%
6496
CoDE-Stop
67.80%
12759
92.40%
3463
94.50%
1300
52.50%
6283
Altern.
DEER
68.20%
13621
93.70%
3344
94.70%
1173
52.60%
5883
CoDE-Stop
67.70%
13234
93.20%
3289
94.50%
1133
52.70%
5623
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of DEER and CoDE-Stop Methods with different delimiters for reasoning steps. CoDE-Stop maintains similar accuracy and cost reductions compared to this baseline for both potential delimiters, providing evidence for its robustness.
Figure 12: Hyperparameter tuning CoDE-Stop on AMC23 for Deepseek-R1-Llama-8B. For CoDE-Stop, we set rmin=0.9 , the number of ramping steps to be 2, and vary the degeneration threshold τ . For this model, we choose τ=35 as it is the smallest threshold providing the highest accuracy in our range. Similar plots and tuning decisions were made for the other models we evaluate.
Model
AMC23
AIME
MATH500
GSM8K
GPQA-D
Qwen3-4b
3.5
5.3
2
0.9
4.6
Deepseek-R1-Llama-8B
35
90.7
20.5
7.6
64.7
Qwen3-14b
3.3
6.9
2.3
0.9
5.5
Nemotron-8B
8
15.6
4.6
2.2
11.8
Appendix
Table 7: τ values used in hyperparameter-transfer experiments. Grid search was performed to obtain optimal τ -values for AMC23. These values were scaled according to the average number of reasoning steps for each benchmark to obtain their respective thresholds.
Model
Benchmark
Tuned Acc
Tuned Cost
Transf. Acc
Transf. Cost
Δ Acc
Δ Cost
Qwen3-4B
AIME
67.8
12759
67.0
12837
-0.8
+78
MATH500
92.4
3463
93.5
3696
+1.1
+233
GSM8K
94.5
1300
94.6
1268
+0.1
-32
GPQA
52.5
6283
52.4
6038
-0.1
-245
DeepSeek-R1
AIME
34.7
11608
34.6
11621
-0.1
+13
MATH500
84.0
2657
83.4
2491
-0.6
-166
Appendix
Table 8: Robustness check: comparison between per-benchmark tuned thresholds (Tuned) and the AMC23-based transferred thresholds used in our experiments (Transf.). The transferred thresholds achieve nearly identical accuracy–compute tradeoffs.
Figure 13: Analysis comparing high and low degeneration score trajectories.
Figure 14: Qualitative example of a high-degeneration trajectory from AIME. The model repeatedly cycles through nearly identical reasoning patterns and revisits the same candidate solution without making meaningful progress, resulting in prolonged repetitive reasoning behavior.
Figure 15: Confidence trajectories for DeepSeek (correct: top/blue, incorrect: bottom/orange; red dashed = early-stop point).
Figure 16: Confidence trajectories for Nemotron . Same trend as DeepSeek: correct trajectories stabilize early; incorrect ones stay long and volatile.
Figure 17: Reasoning-step count distributions. Correct trajectories (blue) are consistently shorter than incorrect ones (orange) across all settings; GSM8K is the shortest, AIME the longest.
Figure 18: Average degeneration score DK vs. reasoning step. Incorrect trajectories (orange) degenerate faster than correct ones (blue) in every model/benchmark combination.
Figure 19: Average confidence vs. reasoning step. Correct trajectories (blue) are high and well-separated early; the gap from incorrect (orange) shrinks at late steps, confirming early confidence is more discriminative.
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance by generating long chains of thought (CoT), but often overthink, continuing to reason after a solution has already stabilized and thereby wasting tokens and increasing latency. Existing inference-time early-exit methods rely primarily on answer-level signals, such as confidence or trial-answer consistency, to decide when to stop. However, these signals mainly reflect answer readiness rather than reasoning convergence: they may trigger before the model has finished exploring or self-correcting, causing premature exits that can degrade final-answer accuracy and leave the retained reasoning chain semantically incomplete. We identify reasoning-level semantic redundancy as a complementary signal for semantic-preserving early exit: when successive steps no longer add novel progress and instead revisit established conclusions, the reasoning trajectory has likely converged. Building on this insight, we propose PUMA, a plug-and-play framework that combines a lightweight Redundancy Detector with answer-level verification. The detector flags semantically redundant candidate exits, while verification confirms whether stopping is safe, allowing PUMA to remove redundant continuation while preserving both answer accuracy and a coherent reasoning prefix. Across five LRMs and five challenging reasoning benchmarks, PUMA achieves 26.2% average token reduction while preserving accuracy and retained CoT quality. Additional experiments on code generation, zero-shot vision-language reasoning, and learned stopping-policy internalization further demonstrate that reasoning-level redundancy is a robust, transferable, and learnable signal for efficient reasoning. Our code is available at https://github.com/giovanni-vaccarino/PUMA.
Dehai Min, Giovanni Vaccarino, Huiyi Chen +3
University of Illinois Chicago · Politecnico di Milano · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +1
Reasoning models often generate very long reasoning traces, making inference computationally expensive. Existing approaches typically improve efficiency either through inference-time early-stopping mechanisms or by explicitly encouraging shorter reasoning during training, for example through reinforcement learning with length penalties. We show that substantial efficiency gains can instead emerge from a different kind of supervision: confidence. Using a self-supervised procedure, we fine-tune reasoning models to predict their confidence in the answer at intermediate points along their own reasoning trajectories using only 600 training problems. Confidence is used only as a training target: the loss contains no objective for reasoning length, efficiency, or stopping. At inference, the fine-tuned models use the standard generation procedure, with no confidence elicitation or early-stopping mechanism. Despite this, self-supervised confidence fine-tuning makes reasoning more efficient, reducing generated tokens by up to 25% at matched accuracy across Gemma, Qwen, Nemotron, and GPT-OSS models on mathematical, scientific, and coding reasoning benchmarks, with efficiency gains comparable to methods that explicitly optimize for shorter reasoning. Analysis of reasoning episodes further shows that confidence supervision largely preserves the base models' high-level reasoning composition rather than selectively suppressing particular behaviors. Our results suggest that efficient reasoning may emerge as a downstream consequence of learning metacognitive signals, without being directly optimized.
By incorporating test-time compute scaling, large reasoning models (LRMs) can solve complex problems through explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning processes. However, they often suffer from overthinking, resulting in redundant token outputs and degraded accuracy. Current methods to mitigate this issue remain limited: training-based approaches require substantial computational resources, while training-free methods rely on well-crafted prompts or unreliable confidence signals. In this work, we investigate early stopping from the perspective of attention distributions and propose a simple method, ASAG, which infers the model's reasoning state and adaptively adjusts the generation strategy. The proposed framework is training-free and plug-and-play, enabling seamless integration into existing LRMs. Extensive experiments on nine benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements across mainstream LRMs with varying parameter scales, including the DeepSeek-R1-Distill and Qwen3 series. Specifically, ASAG improves average accuracy by 3.2% while reducing the number of generated tokens by nearly 40% across all reasoning tasks on Qwen3-8B.
Jiakai Li, Ke Qin, Rongzheng Wang +4
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China · Ubiquitous Intelligence and Trusted Services Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China