How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23926v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 05:32:02 GMT
• Title: How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning
• Abstract summary: Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought.<n>But how much of this deliberation is actually necessary has never been measured at scale or explained from first principles.<n>We formalise reasoning redundancy directly in terms of the reasoning model itself.
• Score: 11.159657169036564
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought, paying heavily in latency, GPU time, and energy. Casual inspection of their traces reveals extensive reformulation, verification, and circular self-reflection, yet how much of this deliberation is actually necessary has never been measured at scale or explained from first principles. This paper closes both gaps. We formalise reasoning redundancy directly in terms of the reasoning model itself: the redundancy of a correct trace is the largest fraction of its trailing segmented steps that can be truncated while $π$, forced to terminate thinking and emit a final answer, still produces the correct answer. A large-scale quantification across four frontier reasoning models and two mathematical benchmarks shows that step-level redundancy is consistently high -- between 61% and 93% across the 8 (model, benchmark) conditions we study, with the median critical prefix equal to a single segmented step in six of the eight conditions -- that the finding is robust to the choice of judge family, and that although $ρ$ decreases with problem difficulty on MATH-500, all four models remain substantially redundant ($ρ\in [46\%, 85\%]$) even on the hardest Level-5 problems. We then prove that this redundancy is a structural consequence of length-agnostic outcome rewards, not a model-specific artefact: under any such reward, no finite expected stopping time is optimal. The result holds regardless of RL algorithm, base model, data distribution, or whether the policy is obtained via RL or distillation; over-thinking is therefore not a bug to be patched in individual models but a structural property of how current reasoning models are trained. Code: https://github.com/zhiyuanZhai20/how-much-thinking-is-enough

Related papers

• ThinkRetrieve: Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning Traces for Test-Time Scaling [60.48279351544583]
  ThinkRetrieve is a test-time scaling framework for large reasoning models.<n>It retrieves relevant exemplars at each intermediate step and injects them directly into the thinking trace.<n>It consistently improves accuracy over standard test-time scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T13:58:07Z)
• Thinking Past the Answer: Evaluating Harmful Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models [38.84286306535778]
  We show that stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%.<n>While common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking, they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking.<n>Our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T19:59:27Z)
• Stateful Reasoning via Insight Replay [51.85629502016196]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has become a foundation for eliciting multi-step reasoning in large language models.<n>We identify a major cause of this phenomenon: as the CoT grows, the model's attention to critical insights produced earlier in the trace gradually weakens.<n>We propose textbfInsightReplay, a stateful reasoning approach in which the model periodically extracts critical insights from its reasoning trace and replays them near the active generation frontier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T06:52:59Z)
• Uncovering the Representation Geometry of Minimal Cores in Overcomplete Reasoning Traces [56.497263592610295]
  Language models often generate long chain-of-thought traces, but it remains unclear how much of this reasoning is necessary for preserving the final prediction.<n>We study this through the lens of overcomplete reasoning traces.<n>We define the minimal core as the smallest subset of steps that preserves either the final answer or predictive distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T04:35:45Z)
• The Coupling Tax: How Shared Token Budgets Undermine Visible Chain-of-Thought Under Fixed Output Limits [12.316478346055618]
  Chain-of-thought reasoning is often treated as a monotone way to improve language-model accuracy by letting a model think longer.<n>We identify a countervailing effect, the coupling tax: when reasoning traces and final answers share one output-token budget, long traces can crowd out the answer they are meant to support.<n>Across GSM8K, MATH-500, and five BIG-Bench Hard tasks with Qwen3 models at three scales, non-thinking mode matches or outperforms thinking mode on GSM8K and MATH-500 at every budget up to 2048 tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T12:54:53Z)
• Stepwise Penalization for Length-Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [66.22060690012512]
  Large reasoning models improve with more test-time computation, but often overthink, producing unnecessarily long chains-of-thought that raise cost without improving accuracy.<n>We propose Step-wise Adaptive Penalization (SWAP), a fine-grained framework that allocates length reduction across steps based on intrinsic contribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T20:23:59Z)
• Fragile Thoughts: How Large Language Models Handle Chain-of-Thought Perturbations [2.5782420501870296]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a foundational technique for eliciting reasoning from Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This paper presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of robustness to 5 CoT perturbation types: textitMathError, UnitConversion, Sycophancy, SkippedSteps, and textitExtraSteps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T03:11:30Z)
• Correct, Concise and Complete: Multi-stage Training For Adaptive Reasoning [11.179446105672461]
  We propose a multi-stage efficient reasoning method that combines supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.<n>Our approach reduces response length by an average of 28% for 8B models and 40% for 32B models.<n>It achieves a superior trade-off compared to more complex state-of-the-art efficient reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T12:31:51Z)
• Beyond Pass@k: Breadth-Depth Metrics for Reasoning Boundaries [2.9807229517491827]
  We propose Cover@tau, which measures the fraction of problems that a model can solve for which at least a tau proportion of completions are correct.<n>Unlike Pass@k, Cover@tau captures reasoning under an explicit reliability threshold.<n>We evaluate several RLVR models using Cover@tau-based metrics and illustrate how the relative rankings of popular algorithms change compared to Pass@1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T15:14:58Z)
• Think Right: Learning to Mitigate Under-Over Thinking via Adaptive, Attentive Compression [68.69801176669843]
  We propose an online post-training RL method that prunes redundant steps and estimates difficulty.<n> TRAAC (Think Right with Adaptive, Attentive Compression) achieves an average absolute accuracy gain of 8.4%.<n>Although our models are trained on math datasets, they show accuracy and efficiency gains on out-of-distribution non-math datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:00:20Z)
• What makes Reasoning Models Different? Follow the Reasoning Leader for Efficient Decoding [84.42056293290015]
  We analyze the token-level misalignment between reasoning and non-reasoning models.<n>Motivated by the Local Misalignment Diminish, we propose FoReaL-Decoding.<n>On four popular math-reasoning benchmarks, FoReaL-Decoding reduces theoretical FLOPs by 30 to 50% and trims CoT length by up to 40%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T05:08:32Z)
• The Price of a Second Thought: On the Evaluation of Reasoning Efficiency in Large Language Models [54.88805865447848]
  We show that instruct models achieve higher efficiency overall, and problem difficulty affects efficiency.<n>We propose COTHINK, a simple two-stage pipeline: an instruct model drafts a brief outline, and a thinking model expands it.<n>On GSM8K, MATH500, and AIME24, COTHINK cuts token usage by 21.1% while keeping accuracy on four thinking models, and remains competitive with strong efficiency baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:24:45Z)
• DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs [9.561022942046279]
  We propose Divide and Conquer Reasoning (DCR) to enhance the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) We first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers. In particular, we first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T14:38:46Z)

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.