Answer Delivery Under a Shared Token Budget: An Audited Study of Stopping and Finalization

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.

Adding inference structure to a language model lets it search, verify, and revise, but these actions consume the very budget they are supposed to use well. In this paper, we investigate whether there exists a token-budget threshold, below which the overhead of planning and verification hurts performance and above which it helps. We evaluate two systems on FinQA and TAT-QA financial reasoning tasks, using GPT-5.4 mini across 14 budget tiers ranging from 250 to 42,000 output-equivalent tokens. The first system is a monolith, which is a single LLM call. The second is a verified search architecture that adds planning, label-blind checking, and repair capabilities. We run 1,000 cases for a total of 28,000 completed cells. Both systems score 0% at the two lowest tiers, where neither can fit a complete prompt. At 1,000 tokens, the monolith reaches 18% accuracy while verified search scores near 0%, since the planning overhead leaves no room for an answer. From 1,500 tokens onward, verified search surpasses the monolith and maintains a consistent advantage, reaching approximately 44% at the highest tiers while the monolith reaches approximately 40%. The crossover occurs between 1,000 and 1,500 output-equivalent tokens, confirmed by a strict intersection-union test ($p \le 0.001$ at both endpoints).

Large language models often reason at length before answering, increasing cost and latency. Prompts and trained settings can shorten this reasoning, but a shorter trace may only show that the model stopped sooner. Here, we evaluate paired runs of the same question at matched reasoning horizons across 198 GPQA Diamond and 500 MMLU-Pro questions. We test a numeric/concision prompt that announces a token limit for Qwen3-14B and the trained effort settings of gpt-oss-20b and -120b. The Qwen prompt shortens reasoning traces by 12-17%, while accuracy changes at matched token limits are small and mixed. A concise/early-answer instruction raises MMLU-Pro accuracy by 3.8 percentage points at 512 tokens, including +2.7 points when both runs are unfinished. Its gain at 2,048 tokens is uncertain. For gpt-oss, candidate-logit answers from completed low- and medium-effort reasoning are 14.5-26.3 points more accurate than matched-horizon high-effort answers. Most of the 512-token advantage comes from lower effort finishing earlier, while differences among unfinished runs are smaller and mixed. Wrong early answers often concentrate probability on the chosen option, so earlier stopping does not uniformly improve probability quality. In these tests, a tight deadline can favor lower effort or a concise instruction, whereas allowing high effort to finish can recover higher final accuracy. Evaluations should report correct completion before a deadline, the answer obtained when a run is stopped, differences among unfinished runs, and probability assigned to the correct answer separately.