Settle: Learning When to Stop Reasoning

Reasoning models spend test-time compute unevenly across instances, and a growing family of early-exit rules -- confidence thresholds, entropy monitors, answer-stability checks, and learned stoppers -- promises to reclaim the waste. These rules, however, are evaluated under heterogeneous protocols that leave the deployment question unanswered: at a fixed tolerance for losing correct answers, which policy saves more compute, and does the saving survive probe overhead? We answer this question with a controlled study across 18 task-model settings spanning GSM8K, MATH-500, MMLU-Pro, AIME-90, and GPQA on Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1-distilled models, using LearnStop, a hidden-state-free logistic stopper over prefix-observable features, as the learned policy instrument. Under matched lost-correct risk at $α$ = 0.15, with the scalar competitor selected on calibration data from confidence, entropy, confidence-leap, and run-stability exits, the answer forms three regimes. Learned stopping wins on all four primary Qwen3 free-form math settings (+3.2 to +21.2 pp additional total-token saving); calibrated scalar exits win on multiple-choice MMLU-Pro; and small hard benchmarks (AIME-90, GPQA) admit no certifiable aggressive policy at all. A trajectory decomposition predicts the regime: learning pays where answers oscillate and correctness evidence is spread across complementary signals, while a single confidence threshold suffices where most instances are already solved at the first checkpoint. Cost accounting sharpens the picture further -- the same policy that saves 32% of tokens under KV-cache forking costs 121% extra under black-box repeated prefilling. Together, these results replace the single-method race with a decision procedure for choosing a stopping rule from the trajectory structure and serving regime of the target workload.

Reasoning LLMs often continue reasoning after reaching a correct answer, wasting computation and sometimes replacing it with an incorrect one. Deciding when to stop is a metareasoning problem: the model must weigh what further reasoning could achieve against its cost, given what it can already answer. Direct utility training learns a stopping representation at a chosen token price; supporting new prices can require additional controller training. We introduce BELT (BELief-based Termination), which separates outcome prediction from stopping control. It learns beliefs about current and future answers from a frozen LLM's hidden states, then fits a linear stopping policy on the frozen features. The prediction targets are independent of token price, so one probe supports different accuracy-cost trade-offs through CPU policy refitting or threshold adjustment. Averaged over five out-of-distribution (OOD) math benchmarks, BELT reduces generated tokens by 41% on Qwen3-1.7B and 51% on OLMo-3-7B-Think without loss of accuracy. The same math-trained BELT transfers to coding and agentic tasks without training on code or agentic data. In all three domains, its accuracy-cost trade-offs are competitive with or better than those of end-to-end controllers. On OLMo3, its probe has 21.2x fewer parameters than one checkpoint of the strongest baseline, OS-Pruner, and needs 55x fewer training GPU-hours than OS-Pruner's five price-specific checkpoints.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large reasoning models (LRMs) on complex tasks but often produces long, redundant traces. Recent training-free early-exit methods shorten these traces by choosing an intermediate point to stop reasoning. We study one such strategy that injects an end-of-think token (EoT, </think>) at this point to trigger the reasoning-to-answering transition, and find that the injected EoT does not always induce a clean answering phase. Answering-phase generation can continue before the model regenerates another EoT, with the span preceding this regenerated EoT scaling with the reasoning tokens saved by early exit and exhibiting continued reasoning behavior. We call this spurious CoT termination, where reasoning-like generation continues into the answering phase. We hypothesize that insufficient attention to the injected EoT contributes to spurious CoT termination and probe this hypothesis with Exit-token Attention Biasing (EAB). Across four LRMs, five benchmarks, and two early-exit methods, increasing attention to the injected EoT reduces spurious CoT termination and answering-phase length. These results reveal a limitation of controlling LRMs by externally matching their explicit think-block format. Inserting the EoT token conforms to this format but does not by itself guarantee the intended reasoning-to-answering transition. Our code is available at https://github.com/Seunghee-Koh/Spurious-CoT-Termination.