Organizations: Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, China · University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China · MoE Key Laboratory of Brain-inspired Intelligent Perception and Cognition, University of Science and Technology of China · Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. · College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University
Flexible switching between reasoning trajectories (i.e., thought switching) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). However, existing models often switch excessively yet fail to sustain promising reasoning thoughts, a phenomenon termed "under-thinking". While recent efforts suppress switching to mitigate this, such over-correction may discard valuable trajectories. To address this challenge, we propose Steady Thought (ST), a novel thought-level preference optimization framework. ST formalizes under-thinking as a preference issue at switching points, forcing single-path continuations from identified points to yield high-quality reasoning. Then, ST performs thought-level preference optimization by treating the newly generated response as preferred and the original one as dis-preferred. Experiments across multiple models and datasets show that ST effectively reduces token consumption, achieving reductions of up to 63.8%, while maintaining strong reasoning accuracy. Further analysis suggests that ST helps models acquire a generalizable ability to reduce redundant switching across domains and languages. Code is available at https://github.com/MIRALab-USTC/SteadyThought.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Rank of the first correct thought position for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B on MATH-500. (b) Rank of the first correct thought position for Qwen3-8B on AIME2024. (c) Overview of the ST framework, which identifies thought switching points using two complementary signals: explicit linguistic markers and concurrent entropy spikes around step boundaries. Starting from these identified junctions, the model is guided via logit control to generate persistent reasoning continuations, effectively verifying the potential of the current thought. These synthesized paths are then used to construct fine-grained preference pairs for the STPO objective, which reinforces trajectory commitment at the exact point of divergence to effectively mitigate under-thinking and improve reasoning efficiency.
Figure 2: Comparison of switching behavior across four metrics: average response length and number of switches on all responses (first two columns) and on the common correct subset (last two columns). Response length is measured in words. The first row shows DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, and the second row shows Qwen3-8B. Blue bars represent the base model, and orange bars represent ST.
Table 3
Training Method
MATH-500
AIME 2024
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Vanilla
82.0
4385
27.5
11273
+ SFT-standard
80.4
2650
22.9
7169
+ SFT-thought
78.0
2661
20.8
6650
+ DPO-standard
82.6
4273
30.8
10701
Table 5: Comparison of different training methods.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
alternatively
another way
another thought
another approach
another method
another solution
another technique
think differently
another strategy
Appendix
Table 6: Explicit linguistic markers
Method
MATH-500
AIME 2024
GSM8K
LiveCode
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Vanilla
82.8
3369
41.6
9638
88.1
1112
56.4
8398
Steady Thought
85.8
2653
44.2
9100
87.4
874
56.8
7447
Appendix
Table 8: Results on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B across different benchmarks.
Figure 3: Comparison of switching behavior across four metrics: average response length and number of switches on all responses (first two columns) and on the common correct subset (last two columns). Response length is measured in words. The first row shows DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B, and the second row shows Qwen3-32B. Blue bars represent the base model, and orange bars represent ST.
Method
MATH-500
AIME 2024
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Acc(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
82.0
4385
27.5
11273
+ Steady Thought
83.6
2691
30.8
7577
w/o explicit linguistic markers
82.2
2609
29.2
8316
w/o boundary entropy spikes
83.4
3554
28.7
8199
Qwen3-8B
91.4
4724
62.1
10895
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on switching-point signals.
Model
Total Tokens Consumed
Average Tokens Consumed
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
49165922
3117
Qwen3-8B
104958704
6912
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B
45182779
3374
Qwen3-32B
84345884
5981
Appendix
Table 11: Token consumption overview for trajectory synthesis stage
Model
Initial Samples
Number of Thoughts
Converted Pairs
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
1051
16177
2054
Qwen3-8B
1051
15185
1757
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B
1051
13389
1907
Qwen3-32B
1051
15500
1877
Appendix
Table 12: Data utilization statistics in the Trajectory Synthesis stage.
Problem :
The polynomial x3−3x2+4x−1 is a factor of x9+px6+qx3+r. Enter the ordered triple (p,q,r).
Reference Answer : (6,31,-1)
Before ST (14336 output tokens) :
Thought 1: Okay, so I need to find the ordered triple (p,q,r) such that the polynomial x3−3x2+4x−1 is a factor of x9+px6+qx3+r. … Let me check if this makes sense. Thought 2: Wait, let me verify this result by another method to be sure. Maybe by polynomial division or by considering that x9… So perhaps my earlier approach is correct. Thought 3: But let me check with the values I found. If p=6,… Let me check if x3−3x2+4x−1 divides this. Thought 4: Alternatively, let me try to perform the division …So there is a discrepancy in the coefficient of p . Thought 5: Let me check the first approach again. …Wait, but this seems conflicting with the previous result. Thought 6: Wait, actually, no. The original polynomial is x9… Let me check my calculations again. Thought 7: First, let me verify the first approach where I substituted α into the polynomial. …So the equations are correct. Thought 8: But then why does the second approach give a different equation for the x2 coefficient? Wait, maybe the second approach is not correct. …This seems correct. Thought 9: The second approach, however, might have an error in the expansion or reduction. Let me recheck …there is a mistake in one of the approaches. Thought 10: Wait, let me compute α9+pα6+qα3+r with p=6 , q=31 , r=−1 …Hence, this approach might not be straightforward. Thought 11: Alternatively, if I substitute y=x3 , then P(x)=y3+py2+qy+r . But since x3=3x2−4x+1 , then y=3x2−4x+1 . Therefore, P(x)=(3x2−4x+1)3+⋯ .
After ST (7413 output tokens) :
Thought 1: Okay, so I need to find the ordered triple (p,q,r) such that the polynomial x3−3x2+4x−1 is a factor of x9+px6+qx3+r. …This seems complicated, but maybe there’s a smarter way. Thought 2: Alternatively, since the given polynomial is a factor, then all roots …Let me check if indeed this is divisible by the cubic. Thought 3: Alternatively, perhaps there is a better way. …Let me try this approach. Thought 4: Let me assume that Q(x)=x6+ax3+b.… Final Answer The ordered triple is (6,31,−1) .
Appendix
Table 13: An example trajectory before and after ST.
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.
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet they often suffer from overthinking, expending redundant computational steps on simple problems, or underthinking, failing to explore sufficient reasoning paths despite inherent capabilities. These issues lead to inefficiencies and potential inaccuracies, limiting practical deployment in resource-constrained settings. Existing methods to mitigate overthinking, such as suppressing reflective keywords or adjusting reasoning length, may inadvertently induce underthinking, compromising accuracy. Therefore, we propose ReBalance, a training-free framework that achieves efficient reasoning with balanced thinking. ReBalance leverages confidence as a continuous indicator of reasoning dynamics, identifying overthinking through high confidence variance and underthinking via consistent overconfidence. By aggregating hidden states from a small-scale dataset into reasoning mode prototypes, we compute a steering vector to guide LRMs' reasoning trajectories. A dynamic control function modulates this vector's strength and direction based on real-time confidence, pruning redundancy during overthinking, and promoting exploration during underthinking. Extensive experiments conducted on four models ranging from 0.5B to 32B, and across nine benchmarks in math reasoning, general question answering, and coding tasks demonstrate that ReBalance effectively reduces output redundancy while improving accuracy, offering a general, training-free, and plug-and-play strategy for efficient and robust LRM deployment. Project page and code are available at https://rebalance-ai.github.io .
Yulin Li, Tengyao Tu, Li Ding +5
Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Zhongguancun Academy · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab +3
Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved strong performance on challenging mathematical and scientific tasks through long chain-of-thought reasoning, but they often suffer from overthinking with unnecessary reasoning steps. Existing truncation-based methods typically detect consecutive trial-answer agreement and force early exit, yet such local stopping signals do not necessarily indicate final-answer stability and can disrupt useful subsequent reflection or verification, potentially leading to performance degradation. We propose consistency-aware logit masking (CALM), a training-free decoding intervention for mitigating overthinking in LRMs. CALM first monitors trial answers at step boundaries and then applies logit masking to action transition point (ATP) tokens such as "Wait", "Alternatively", and "Hmm", suppressing redundant transitional reasoning while allowing the model to continue its thought process more naturally. Experiments across four advanced LRMs and five benchmarks show that CALM reduces token consumption by 18.6%-25.0% compared with full CoT reasoning while maintaining performance, and can even improve accuracy by 0.07%-1.48% by reducing redundant reasoning. LLM-as-a-Judge results also demonstrate that CALM provides more coherent and concise results.
Shengjing Liu, Feiyang Li, Yuxuan Yang +2
College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University