Efficient Language Model Reasoning
Overview
This field asks how language models can solve tasks such as math, coding, science questions, and multi-hop retrieval without spending unnecessary computation. Common approaches compress or prune chain-of-thought, stop generation when answers stabilize, and adapt reasoning budgets to task difficulty; others use reinforcement learning, distillation, search, parallel sampling, or smaller-model routing. Newer work also explores latent reasoning and memory or KV-cache management to reduce the cost of generating and retaining explicit thoughts. The central tension is that extra reasoning can help on difficult problems but may waste resources, introduce errors, or even hurt accuracy, so methods are judged by both quality and cost on benchmarks such as GSM8K, MATH, AIME, and GPQA.
Latest papers
373 papers89 papers in the last four weeks, up 218% on the four weeks before. 0.5% of all new papers.
Not All Turns Are Equally Hard: Adaptive Thinking Budgets For Efficient Multi-Turn Reasoning in Agents
Early Stopping for Large Reasoning Models via Confidence Dynamics
QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems
Profile-Then-Reason: Bounded Semantic Complexity for Tool-Augmented Language Agents
LightThinker++: From Reasoning Compression to Memory Management
NeuReasoner: Towards Explainable, Controllable, and Unified Reasoning via Mixture-of-Neurons
FoE: Forest of Errors Makes the First Solution the Best in Large Reasoning Models
Evaluating the Formal Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models through Chomsky Hierarchy
Batched Contextual Reinforcement: A Task-Scaling Law for Efficient Reasoning
Brief Is Better: Non-Monotonic Chain-of-Thought Budget Effects in Function-Calling Language Agents
Apriel-Reasoner: RL Post-Training for General-Purpose and Efficient Reasoning
On the Role of Reasoning Patterns in the Generalization Discrepancy of Long Chain-of-Thought Supervised Fine-Tuning
DeepSeek-R1-0528 and gpt-oss-120b, with their problem sets controlled to be identical. Despite their comparable performance, we uncover a striking paradox: lower training loss does not translate to better generalization. SFT on DeepSeek-R1-0528 data achieves remarkably lower training loss, yet exhibits significantly worse generalization performance on reasoning benchmarks compared to those trained on gpt-oss-120b. To understand this paradox, we perform a multi-faceted analysis probing token-level SFT loss and step-level reasoning behaviors. Our analysis reveals a difference in reasoning patterns. gpt-oss-120b exhibits highly convergent and deductive trajectories, whereas DeepSeek-R1-0528 favors a divergent and branch-heavy exploration pattern. Consequently, models trained with DeepSeek-R1 data inherit inefficient exploration behaviors, often getting trapped in redundant exploratory branches that hinder them from reaching correct solutions. Building upon this insight, we propose a simple yet effective remedy of filtering out frequently branching trajectories to improve the generalization of SFT. Experiments show that training on selected DeepSeek-R1-0528 subsets surprisingly improves reasoning performance by up to 5.1% on AIME25, 5.5% on BeyondAIME, and on average 3.6% on five benchmarks.