Is Long-to-Short a Free Lunch? Investigating Inconsistency and Reasoning Efficiency in LRMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19492v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:25:28 GMT
• Title: Is Long-to-Short a Free Lunch? Investigating Inconsistency and Reasoning Efficiency in LRMs
• Authors: Shu Yang, Junchao Wu, Xuansheng Wu, Derek Wong, Ninhao Liu, Di Wang,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether efficient reasoning strategies introduce behavioral inconsistencies in large reasoning models (LRMs)<n>$ICBENCH$ is a benchmark designed to measure inconsistency in LRMs across three dimensions.<n>We find that while larger models generally exhibit greater consistency than smaller ones, they all display widespread "scheming" behaviors.
• Score: 8.359909829007005
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers, yet this strength introduces the risk of overthinking, where excessive token generation occurs even for simple tasks. While recent work in efficient reasoning seeks to reduce reasoning length while preserving accuracy, it remains unclear whether such optimization is truly a free lunch. Drawing on the intuition that compressing reasoning may reduce the robustness of model responses and lead models to omit key reasoning steps, we investigate whether efficient reasoning strategies introduce behavioral inconsistencies. To systematically assess this, we introduce $ICBENCH$, a benchmark designed to measure inconsistency in LRMs across three dimensions: inconsistency across task settings (ITS), inconsistency between training objectives and learned behavior (TR-LB), and inconsistency between internal reasoning and self-explanations (IR-SE). Applying $ICBENCH$ to a range of open-source LRMs, we find that while larger models generally exhibit greater consistency than smaller ones, they all display widespread "scheming" behaviors, including self-disagreement, post-hoc rationalization, and the withholding of reasoning cues. Crucially, our results demonstrate that efficient reasoning strategies such as No-Thinking and Simple Token-Budget consistently increase all three defined types of inconsistency. These findings suggest that although efficient reasoning enhances token-level efficiency, further investigation is imperative to ascertain whether it concurrently introduces the risk of models evading effective supervision.

Related papers

• Does More Inference-Time Compute Really Help Robustness? [50.47666612618054]
  We show that small-scale, open-source models can benefit from inference-time scaling.<n>We identify an important security risk, intuitively motivated and empirically verified as an inverse scaling law.<n>We urge practitioners to carefully weigh these subtle trade-offs before applying inference-time scaling in security-sensitive, real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T18:08:38Z)
• Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias [59.79548223686273]
  We introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate Reasoning Theater Bias (RTB)<n>We investigate six bias types including Simple Cues and Fake Chain-of-Thought.<n>We identify'shallow reasoning'-plausible but flawed arguments-as the most potent form of RTB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• Exploring and Exploiting the Inherent Efficiency within Large Reasoning Models for Self-Guided Efficiency Enhancement [101.77467538102924]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit overthinking, which hinders efficiency and inflates inference cost.<n>We propose two lightweight methods to enhance LRM efficiency.<n>First, we introduce Efficiency Steering, a training-free activation steering technique that modulates reasoning behavior via a single direction.<n>Second, we develop Self-Rewarded Efficiency RL, a reinforcement learning framework that dynamically balances task accuracy and brevity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T17:18:12Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• THINK-Bench: Evaluating Thinking Efficiency and Chain-of-Thought Quality of Large Reasoning Models [17.609493312457]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved impressive performance in complex tasks, often outperforming conventional large language models (LLMs)<n>Overthinking severely limits their computational efficiency.<n>We introduce Think-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning efficiency of LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T08:41:14Z)
• Think or Not? Exploring Thinking Efficiency in Large Reasoning Models via an Information-Theoretic Lens [51.90059610606049]
  This paper revisits the efficiency of such reasoning processes through an information-theoretic lens.<n>We propose two metrics, InfoBias and InfoGain, to quantify divergence from ideal reasoning paths and stepwise information contribution.<n>Motivated by these findings, we introduce an entropy-based Adaptive Think strategy that dynamically halts reasoning once confidence is sufficiently high.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:38:56Z)
• When Can Large Reasoning Models Save Thinking? Mechanistic Analysis of Behavioral Divergence in Reasoning [19.329523111916682]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have significantly advanced performance on complex tasks, yet their tendency to overthink introduces inefficiencies.<n>This study investigates the internal mechanisms of reinforcement learning (RL)-trained LRMs when prompted to save thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T08:55:35Z)
• Let LLMs Break Free from Overthinking via Self-Braking Tuning [60.08396797526657]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities by generating longer chains of thought.<n>This performance gain comes at the cost of a substantial increase in redundant reasoning during the generation process.<n>We propose a novel framework, Self-Braking Tuning (SBT), which tackles overthinking from the perspective of allowing the model to regulate its own reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T16:53:40Z)
• ConCISE: Confidence-guided Compression in Step-by-step Efficient Reasoning [75.1101108949743]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) perform strongly in complex reasoning tasks via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.<n>LRMs often suffer from verbose outputs caused by redundant content, increasing computational overhead, and degrading user experience.<n>We propose ConCISE, a framework that simplifies reasoning chains by reinforcing the model's confidence during inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T01:40:40Z)
• Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey [41.239535590590435]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) significantly improve the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) by learning to reason.<n>However, their deliberative reasoning process leads to inefficiencies in token usage, memory consumption, and inference time.<n>This survey provides a review of efficient inference methods designed specifically for LRMs, focusing on mitigating token inefficiency while preserving the reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T13:27:46Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.