Dynamic K-Head: Difficulty-Supervised Budget Selection for Continuous Latent Reasoning
Authors: Ying Li, Yuqi Chen, Sixuan Li, Yunfeng Cai
Organizations: Beijing Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Applications, Beijing, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Peking University, Beijing, China
Chain-of-thought (CoT) improves reasoning but incurs substantial autoregressive rationale cost. Continuous CoT moves intermediate computation into recurrent hidden states, yet typically uses a fixed number of updates even though the best budget varies across questions and accuracy need not improve monotonically with K. We introduce Dynamic K-Head, a question-conditioned, pre-rollout budget selector. It is jointly trained with the reasoner under selected budgets, using difficulty supervision based on scores assigned from the question alone. We also show that latent-update count can misrepresent end-to-end cost because a short latent rollout can shift computation into a longer explicit continuation. We therefore count latent updates, implementation-specific special tokens, and all decoded text. Instantiated with CoDI on Llama 3.2 1B and GSM8K, Dynamic K-Head reaches 54.44% exact-match accuracy at 12.03 average reasoning/output tokens, compared with 52.31% at 15.21 tokens for fixed-K=6 CoDI---a 2.12-point gain with 20.9% lower token cost. Across three out-of-distribution arithmetic datasets, it reduces cost by 19.3--25.7% while improving accuracy by 0.30--2.22 points. These results demonstrate that difficulty-supervised budget selection can improve both accuracy and efficiency, while stable budget selection remains a central challenge.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Fixed-budget accuracy is non-monotonic and conceals instance-level recoveries. Panel (a) sweeps inference budget k for CoDI trained with fixed K=6 . Panel (b) partitions the 155 K=6 errors recovered by another swept budget: 125 are recovered only below six, 17 only above six, and 13 on both sides. Thus the smaller- and larger-budget recovery totals are 138 and 30, respectively, with the 13 “both sides” problems included in each.
Figure 2: Schematic of Dynamic K-Head training and execution. Anchor, positive, and negative questions are prefilled by the LLM, and the K-head produces a distribution over latent budgets. Learned prototypes map this distribution to ui , while per-question difficulty scores make nearby questions positive pairs and distant questions negative pairs. A sampled K controls the illustrated shared train/inference path, where the anchor question is concatenated with exactly K latent tokens before answer decoding.
GSM8K
GSM8K-NL
Method
Accuracy (%)
Avg. token cost
Accuracy (%)
Avg. token cost
GPT-2
No-CoT SFT
14.25
6.34
14.25
6.34
CoT SFT
48.90
32.27
33.59
67.60
Coconut
33.13
11.21
–
–
CoDI
39.80
14.24
37.38
14.26
Table 1: Accuracy and average token cost on the official GSM8K test set across two backbones and the GSM8K and GSM8K-NL training variants. AdaLR denotes Adaptive Latent Reasoning. All Dynamic K-Head rows use DeepSeek difficulty supervision. Token cost follows Eq. 8 . Within each column, bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively; CoT SFT is excluded from the accuracy ranking, and No-CoT SFT is excluded from the cost ranking.
Figure 3: Accuracy versus average token cost for the Table 1 results, with GPT-2 on the left and Llama 3.2 1B on the right. GSM8K and GSM8K-NL are overlaid using the same method-specific markers, and the horizontal axis uses a logarithmic scale. Dashed lines indicate the Pareto frontiers.
Figure 4: Accuracy (top) and average token cost (bottom) on three OOD datasets. Within each column, methods are ordered as No-CoT SFT, CoDI ( K=6 ), Dynamic K-Head, and CoT SFT. Each panel uses a dataset-specific vertical scale.
Method
Accuracy (%)
Avg. token cost
GPT-2
CoDI
39.80
14.24
Dynamic K-Head (NLL)
38.29
14.37
Dynamic K-Head (difficulty)
37.68
11.56
Llama 3.2 1B
CoDI
52.31
15.21
Table 2: Fixed-budget CoDI and Dynamic K-Head with two signals for difficulty supervision on GSM8K. NLL denotes online continuation NLL recomputed at each training epoch; difficulty denotes fixed DeepSeek scores computed from questions alone. Within each backbone block, bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
λK
Accuracy (%)
Avg. cost
H(K)
H(K∣Q)
I(Q;K)
0.00
50.87
13.11
1.781
1.715
0.066
0.01
54.51
13.33
0.441
0.131
0.310
0.03
54.44
12.03
0.540
0.097
0.443
0.05
52.62
10.27
0.122
0.006
0.115
0.10
49.05
10.89
0.724
0.300
0.424
Table 3: Accuracy, average token cost, marginal entropy H(K) , predictive entropy H(K∣Q) , and question–budget mutual information I(Q;K) for the loss-weight ablation on GSM8K. All information quantities are measured in nats.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: DeepSeek difficulty scores, computed from questions alone, across training, validation, and test. The lower panel reports validation-minus-training and test-minus-training differences in percentage points.
Scaling test-time compute via extended reasoning has become a key paradigm for improving the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing approaches optimize reasoning under fixed or uniformly sampled token budgets, ignoring the fundamental mismatch between problem difficulty and allocated compute. This leads to overthinking on easy problems and underthinking on hard ones, resulting in suboptimal token efficiency across diverse reasoning scenarios. In this paper, we propose Budget-Adaptive Curriculum Reasoning (BCAE), a unified framework that jointly optimizes reasoning quality and token efficiency through three synergistic components: (1) a budget-conditioned unified policy that embeds the token budget as a continuous conditioning signal, eliminating the need for decoupled thinking and summarization strategies; (2) a curriculum-aware budget scheduler that adaptively shifts the training budget distribution from easy to hard problems based on real-time learning progress; and (3) a truncation-aware dense reward mechanism that provides fine-grained credit assignment at intermediate reasoning steps via process-level verification. We further introduce Budget-Conditioned Advantage Estimation (BCAE), a novel variance reduction technique that conditions the advantage baseline on the sampled budget, yielding more stable policy gradients. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH, GSM8K, AIME, and Minerva Math) demonstrate that BACR consistently outperforms other strong baselines across all token budgets, achieving up to 8.3% accuracy improvement under tight budgets while reducing average token consumption by 34% compared to unconstrained reasoning.
Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance with sufficient computation, but they do not inherently know how much computation a task requires. We study budgeted inference-time reasoning for multiple problems under a strict global token constraint and formulate it as an Ordered Stochastic Multiple-Choice Knapsack Problem (OS-MCKP). This perspective highlights a meta-cognitive requirement---anticipating problem difficulty and allocating computation strategically. We propose ROI-Reasoning, a two-stage framework that endows LLMs with intrinsic, budget-aware rationality. First, Meta-Cognitive Fine-Tuning teaches models to predict reasoning cost levels and decide whether a problem is worth attempting before generation. Next, Rationality-Aware Reinforcement Learning optimizes sequential decision making under a hard token budget, allowing models to learn long-horizon allocation strategies. Experiments across mathematical reasoning, multiple-choice question answering, and code generation show that ROI-Reasoning improves scores and generally reduces reference-order regret under tight budgets, with up to a 417% relative score improvement over the strongest same-backbone baseline in mathematics.
Muyang Zhao, Chunhao Tian, Qi Qi +1
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Long chain-of-thought~(CoT) reasoning improves the problem-solving capability of large reasoning models~(LRMs), but often incurs substantial inference cost and overthinking. Existing efficiency methods primarily rely on prompting, post-hoc compression, or length-regularized optimization; these approaches can be sensitive to model scale, depend on external estimators, or under-allocate reasoning to difficult instances. We propose Draft-Thinking, a lightweight adaptation framework that learns a model-adapted draft CoT: a compact, self-contained working derivation that directly supports the final answer. We identify a Cross-Scale Draft Mismatch: concise traces generated by a strong teacher can be too sparse for a smaller target model. To address this mismatch, Progressive Draft Adaptation first transfers a concise reasoning-form prior through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and then applies two-stage reinforcement learning (RL) with progressively harder data and relaxed response budgets to calibrate the reasoning granularity to the target model. The method requires neither post-hoc trajectory compression nor an explicit length-penalty reward. At inference time, draft, adaptive, and step-by-step prompts provide efficiency-oriented, balanced, and detailed reasoning modes, respectively. The step-by-step mode largely preserves the original model's accuracy while using fewer tokens. With only 847 training problems and 120 RL optimization steps, Draft-Thinking substantially reduces reasoning cost across six mathematical and scientific reasoning benchmarks. On MATH500, its draft mode reduces the average response length from 5,668 to 986 tokens, an 82.6% reduction, while achieving 90.6% accuracy compared with 93.0% for the original long CoT model.