Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong reasoning capabilities, yet long-chain reasoning becomes inefficient once the intermediate answer stabilizes across reasoning steps: additional reasoning yields little marginal benefit while incurring substantial inference cost. Existing early-exit methods based on confidence or entropy poorly capture reasoning stability, while consistency-based approaches rely on multi-step trajectory agreement, requiring sequential evaluations that delay exit. To better balance efficiency and reliability, we propose SABER, a training-free framework for stability-aware early exit via adversarial branch probing. SABER constructs simple yet effective semantic perturbations around intermediate reasoning states to form adversarial branches, and applies lightweight probing to estimate their likely final outcomes without full trajectory rollouts. When the probed outcomes remain consistent across branches, SABER exits early; otherwise, it continues reasoning. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks and model architectures show that SABER reduces reasoning token consumption by 30.2%--39.8% on average while maintaining competitive accuracy with full-length reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Dynamics of reasoning behavior under adversarial perturbations across reasoning steps. Left: Answer consistency. Trajectories leading to correct solutions progressively become more stable and consistent under perturbation, whereas trajectories leading to incorrect solutions remain unstable. Right: Confidence variation. Trajectories leading to correct solutions exhibit progressively reduced confidence variation under perturbation, while incorrect trajectories remain highly volatile.
Figure 2: Overview of SABER. The framework performs adversarial probing by constructing neutral and adversarial branches at intermediate reasoning steps to estimate reasoning stability under perturbations. Semantic consistency and confidence stability are jointly integrated into the RSS, which dynamically determines whether reasoning should continue or terminate early.
MATH
SCIENCE
Method
GSM8K
MATH-500
AMC23
Olympiad
AIME24,25
GPQA-D
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
CR ↓
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
Vanilla
91.2
1,164
90.4
3,797
90.6
6,032
56.3
7,461
46.3
10,683
31.8
7,437
67.8
100%
NoThinking
84.6
231
79.4
970
73.1
1,807
41.0
1,998
22.5
5,551
28.8
638
54.9
30.6%
Dynasor
89.8
773
89.4
2,987
86.7
4,689
54.8
6,477
42.5
9,726
31.3
1,471
65.8
71.4%
Table 1: Experimental results across multiple reasoning benchmarks and model scales. “Acc” denotes accuracy, “Tok” denotes reasoning token count, and “CR” denotes compression ratio. ↑ ( ↓ ) indicates higher (lower) values are better.The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 3: Accuracy of RSS early-exit on mathematical reasoning benchmarks: component ablation of semantic consistency (SC) and confidence stability (CS). Results are shown for RSS (our full method) compared with SC-only and CS-only variants on two representative models.
Figure 4: Sampling number ablation on MATH-500 using Qwen3-8B. Left: Accuracy improvement with increasing k . Right: Probe overhead growth and its proportion of total generated tokens as a function of k .
Model
α=0.3
α=0.5
α=0.7
GSM8K
R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
90.4/739
90.1/652
91.0 /662
Qwen3-4B
94.3/1,635
94.5/1,503
94.8 /1,389
Qwen3-8B
95.3/1,604
95.1/1,394
96.0 /1,258
OlympiadBench
R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
56.1 /5,560
54.4/5,462
53.8/5,122
Table 2: Sensitivity analysis of weight α on GSM8K and OlympiadBench. Each cell shows accuracy (%) and average token count.
Figure 5: Accuracy (left y-axis) and average token count (right y-axis) on OlympiadBench under different stopping thresholds τ with α=0.3 . Results are shown for three reasoning models.
Model
Probe
Total
Ratio (%)
R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
221
4,477
4.9%
Qwen3-4B
147
5,221
2.8%
Qwen3-8B
181
4,815
3.8%
Average
183
4,838
3.8%
Table 3: Probe overhead under the default configuration. Probe tokens account for only a small fraction of total generated tokens.
Model
Vanilla
SABER
Reduction
R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
149.4
92.9
37.8%
Qwen3-4B
190.1
107.0
43.7%
Qwen3-8B
243.0
98.5
59.5%
Average
194.2
99.5
48.8%
Table 4: Average inference latency (in seconds) of SABER across GSM8K, AIME24, and GPQA-D.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Comparison between SABER and a confidence-only early-exit strategy on MATH-500. SABER consistently achieves a better efficiency–accuracy trade-off and remains closer to the oracle upper bound across different stopping thresholds.
Scoring Function
GSM8K
MATH-500
Olympiad
AIME24,25
GPQA-D
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
CR ↓
Vanilla
91.2
1,164
90.4
3,797
56.3
7,461
46.3
10,683
31.8
7,437
63.2
100%
RSS (Ours)
91.0
662
91.2
2,401
56.1
5,560
50.9
9,333
34.8
3,326
64.8
69.7%
SC ⋅ CS
91.1
659
91.4
2,509
56.1
5,505
48.4
9,697
31.8
4,576
63.8
75.1%
Branch-UQ Diff
90.1
864
90.6
2,826
55.0
5,639
47.1
8,788
31.3
2,998
62.8
69.1%
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation of different scoring functions under the same neutral/adversarial probing framework on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B.
Category
Perturbation Prompt
Self-Correction
“Wait, I might have made a mistake. Let me reconsider, the answer is \boxed{ ”
Reflection
“Wait, let me reconsider the reasoning, the answer is \boxed{ ”
Alternative Path
“Wait, let me try a different approach, the answer is \boxed{ ”
Verification
“Wait, let me verify the reasoning once more, the answer is \boxed{ ”
Appendix
Table 6: Example perturbation probes. Each category represents a family of possible prompts; only one example is shown per category. SABER defaults to the Self-Correction style (not separately marked).
Perturbation Strategy
GSM8K
MATH-500
Olympiad
GPQA-D
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
SABER (Ours)
94.4
1,349
92.0
2,744
60.0
5,918
57.6
6,502
76.0
4,128
Self-Correction
94.1
1,098
91.6
2,591
59.4
5,837
57.0
5,497
75.5
3,756
Reflection
94.2
1,085
90.8
2,647
58.5
5,600
57.6
5,279
75.3
3,653
Alternative Path
94.1
1,173
90.2
2,765
61.0
5,875
52.5
6,029
74.5
3,961
Verification
94.2
1,023
91.6
2,538
58.7
5,198
52.0
5,315
74.1
3,519
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of different perturbation styles on four benchmarks using Qwen3-4B.
Trigger
GSM8K
MATH-500
AIME24
AIME25
Olympiad
GPQA-D
Overall
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
Tok ↓
Acc ↑
CR ↓
Vanilla
96.4
2,192
92.8
5,135
66.7
12,003
54.2
12,999
59.0
9,447
55.1
9,047
70.7
100%
‘‘Wait’’
96.0
1,258
92.4
2,303
65.0
9,645
52.5
10,592
61.5
4,892
57.6
5,056
70.8
66.4%
Newline ( \n\n )
95.7
1,312
92.8
3,387
65.0
9,115
55.0
10,797
59.7
6,190
56.1
5,726
70.7
71.9%
Appendix
Table 8: Trigger sensitivity analysis on Qwen3-8B. Replacing the lexical trigger “Wait” with a semantically neutral double newline ( \n\n ) yields comparable performance, suggesting limited sensitivity to the choice of trigger.
Figure 7: A case on GSM8K where SABER identifies unstable reasoning states.
Figure 8: Comparison of vanilla reasoning and SABER on a MATH-500 problem. SABER reduces token consumption from 5840 to 1626 while maintaining correctness.
Figure 9: A case on MATH-500 where vanilla reasoning exceeds the context limit due to endless reflection, while SABER exits early and produces the correct answer.
Figure 10: A GSM8K case where vanilla reasoning degrades the correct answer through over-reflection, while SABER preserves it by timely early exit.
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
Large language models often improve task performance by generating long reasoning traces, but the resulting computation is frequently wasted on redundant verification and revision. Existing probe-based early-exit approaches mainly inspect explicit self-doubt expressions, leaving many earlier termination opportunities undetected. Expanding inspection to ordinary reasoning boundaries improves coverage, but also exposes highly diverse intermediate states whose predictive information may reside in different hidden layers. We present Boundary-Expanded and Layer-Adaptive Dynamic Exit for Efficient LLM Reasoning (BLADE), a lightweight framework that dynamically terminates reasoning by estimating whether the generated prefix is sufficient for correct answering. BLADE constructs multi-granular checkpoints from sentence, self-doubt, and paragraph boundaries, and derives robust training labels through repeated answer completions. It further learns a compact subset of informative probe layers instead of relying on fixed choices or expensive representations from all layers. At inference time, calibrated predictions are combined with checkpoint-specific confirmation rules to balance responsiveness and premature-exit risk. Experiments on five benchmarks and two Qwen3 reasoning models show that BLADE preserves near-baseline accuracy while reducing generated tokens by 24.8% on Qwen3-8B and 15.8% on Qwen3-4B. Ablation studies further confirm the benefits of diverse checkpoints and automatic layer selection, demonstrating an effective approach to more efficient LLM reasoning.
Keshu Fu, Keqin Peng, Jun Bai +6
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University · Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI · Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University +1
Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's operational capability boundary, leading to long but unproductive reasoning. In this paper, we study whether LRMs expose early signals predictive of such cases, and whether these signals can be used to mitigate unproductive reasoning. In black-box settings, we find that reasoning expressions contain failure-predictive signals. In white-box settings, we show that the hidden states of the last input token contain information that is predictive of whether a question will not be solved correctly under our evaluation setup. Building on these observations, we propose two test-time monitoring strategies: reasoning expression monitoring and hidden states monitoring, that reduce token usage by 62.7-93.6%, substantially improving efficiency and reliability while largely preserving accuracy.