arxiv: 2601.11340 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-16 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Neural Chain-of-Thought Search: Searching the Optimal Reasoning Path to Enhance Large Language Models

Guoming Ling , Zhongzhan Huang , Yupei Lin , Junxin Li , Shanshan Zhong , Hefeng Wu , Liang Lin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 13:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords chain-of-thoughtlarge language modelsreasoning searchheuristic optimizationpareto improvementsolution space

0 comments

The pith

A search framework for chain-of-thought reasoning locates shorter and more accurate paths in large language models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that sequential chain-of-thought generation in LLMs frequently leads to suboptimal paths with extra steps. By recasting the process as a search over a characterized solution space, sparse superior paths can be found that improve both accuracy and brevity. The key is a dual-factor heuristic that scores candidates on correctness and cost to guide navigation. This matters for making model outputs more efficient without changing the underlying model. A reader cares because it points to a way to fix a common inefficiency in current reasoning methods.

Core claim

NCoTS reformulates reasoning as a dynamic search for the optimal thinking strategy. Quantitative characterization of the solution space reveals sparse superior reasoning paths that are simultaneously more accurate and concise than standard outputs. The method navigates to these paths by evaluating candidate reasoning operators with a dual-factor heuristic that optimizes for both correctness and computational cost.

What carries the argument

The dual-factor heuristic, which scores reasoning steps on both accuracy potential and length cost to select the optimal path.

If this is right

Reasoning accuracy increases by more than 3.5 percent across benchmarks.
Output generation length decreases by more than 22 percent.
The improvement holds as a Pareto gain, better on both metrics.
The approach applies to diverse reasoning tasks without model retraining.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the heuristic works reliably, similar search could apply to other generative tasks like planning or code generation.
The sparsity of good paths suggests that greedy decoding misses many better sequences that beam search or other methods might also find.
Future work could test if the same paths emerge across different model sizes or architectures.

Load-bearing premise

The solution space contains sparse superior reasoning paths that the dual-factor heuristic can identify and reach without needing to check all possibilities.

What would settle it

If applying NCoTS to held-out reasoning benchmarks shows no gain in accuracy or no reduction in generation length compared to standard chain-of-thought, the central claim would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11340 by Guoming Ling, Hefeng Wu, Junxin Li, Liang Lin, Shanshan Zhong, Yupei Lin, Zhongzhan Huang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the Neural Chain-of-Thought Search (NCoTS) Framework. (a) The Path Potential Estimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Visualization of the reasoning solution space. The region to the upper-left of the Original result indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A comparison of the estimated progress against the ground truth progress. The exponentially smoothed estimator output closely aligns with the ground truth progress y = x/L. (2) Does the reasoning progress estimator predict the progress accurately? We introduce the reasoning progress estimator Hprog in Section 2.3, grounded in recent evidence that the hidden states of reasoning models implicitly encode th… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustration of the Collaborative Inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Reasoning solution space visualization across diverse models and benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The definition-based prompt template for classifying thinking modes based on static definitions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The function-based prompt template for analyzing the role of reasoning steps within the problem-solving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Correlation between thinking tokens and thinking modes for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B on the AMC23 dataset. The reasoning steps were classified by DeepSeek-V3 using the definition-based prompt strategy (Prompt 1). herent to the LRM. These modes are not explicitly defined but emerge as clustered behaviors within the model’s high-dimensional representation space. Our Neural Chain-of-Thought Search explo… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Chain-of-Thought reasoning has significantly enhanced the problem-solving capabilities of Large Language Models. Unfortunately, current models generate reasoning steps sequentially without foresight, often becoming trapped in suboptimal reasoning paths with redundant steps. In contrast, we introduce Neural Chain-of-Thought Search (NCoTS), a framework that reformulates reasoning as a dynamic search for the optimal thinking strategy. By quantitatively characterizing the solution space, we reveal the existence of sparse superior reasoning paths that are simultaneously more accurate and concise than standard outputs. Our method actively navigates towards these paths by evaluating candidate reasoning operators using a dual-factor heuristic that optimizes for both correctness and computational cost. Consequently, NCoTS achieves a Pareto improvement across diverse reasoning benchmarks, boosting accuracy by over 3.5% while reducing generation length by over 22%. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/MilkThink-Lab/Neural-CoT-Search.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

NCoTS recasts CoT as explicit search over reasoning steps with a dual correctness-cost heuristic, but the abstract leaves the heuristic's independence and verification thin.

read the letter

The core move is to treat chain-of-thought as a search problem rather than a single forward pass. They characterize the space of possible reasoning paths, claim that superior ones are sparse but exist, and then use a dual-factor heuristic to steer toward paths that are both more accurate and shorter. The reported outcome is a Pareto gain: roughly 3.5 points higher accuracy and 22 percent shorter generations across several reasoning benchmarks, with code released on GitHub. That framing is cleaner than most incremental CoT tweaks and gives a concrete way to think about trading off quality and compute at inference time. The code availability is a plus for anyone who wants to test the idea directly. The main uncertainty is how the correctness part of the heuristic is actually scored during search. If it relies on the same model family to judge its own candidate steps, the navigation could simply reinforce existing biases instead of locating objectively better paths. The abstract does not describe an independent oracle, held-out verification of the heuristic, or how the sampling of the space avoids overfitting to the paths the model already favors. Without those details it is hard to know whether the gains come from genuine search or from lucky sampling within a narrow distribution. This is aimed at people working on inference-time methods and prompt-based reasoning. A reader already following search-augmented or tree-of-thought lines would pick up the dual-heuristic angle quickly. The work is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a full referee pass so the experimental setup and heuristic validation can be checked, but it is not yet at the point where I would cite it without seeing the methods and results sections.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Neural Chain-of-Thought Search (NCoTS), a framework that reformulates standard sequential Chain-of-Thought reasoning as a dynamic search over reasoning operators. It quantitatively characterizes the solution space to identify sparse superior paths that are both more accurate and concise, then navigates to them via a dual-factor heuristic balancing correctness and computational cost. The central empirical claim is a Pareto improvement on diverse reasoning benchmarks: accuracy gains exceeding 3.5% accompanied by generation-length reductions exceeding 22%. Code and data are released.

Significance. If the results hold, the work would be significant for LLM reasoning research by demonstrating that better paths exist in the space and can be located without exhaustive enumeration or additional training. The public code release is a clear strength for reproducibility. The approach could influence future inference-time methods that treat reasoning as search rather than fixed generation.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §3] The central claim that sparse superior paths exist and can be reliably located by the dual-factor heuristic without exhaustive search is load-bearing, yet the quantitative characterization of the solution space (via limited sampling of reasoning operators) lacks sufficient detail on sampling strategy, coverage metrics, or verification against full enumeration to rule out overfitting to the sampled distribution.
[§3.2 (heuristic definition)] Correctness scoring within the dual-factor heuristic appears to rely on the same LLM family used for generation; this creates a circularity risk where the heuristic may simply reinforce the base model's biases rather than identify objectively superior paths. No independent oracle, held-out verifier, or cross-model validation of heuristic accuracy is described.
[§4 (experimental results)] The reported Pareto improvement (+3.5% accuracy, -22% length) is presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or breakdown by benchmark difficulty; it is therefore unclear whether the gains are robust or driven by a subset of easy cases where shorter paths happen to coincide with correct ones.

minor comments (2)

[§3] Notation for the dual-factor heuristic (correctness + cost) should be formalized with explicit equations rather than prose description to allow precise reproduction.
[§4] The abstract states results are measured against external benchmarks, but the main text should include a clear table listing all baselines, model sizes, and exact prompt templates used for fair comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below with specific revisions planned for the manuscript. These changes will provide greater transparency on the solution space analysis, address potential biases in the heuristic, and strengthen the statistical presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §3] The central claim that sparse superior paths exist and can be reliably located by the dual-factor heuristic without exhaustive search is load-bearing, yet the quantitative characterization of the solution space (via limited sampling of reasoning operators) lacks sufficient detail on sampling strategy, coverage metrics, or verification against full enumeration to rule out overfitting to the sampled distribution.

Authors: We agree that additional methodological detail is warranted to support the central claim. In the revised §3, we will explicitly describe the sampling strategy (including the number of operators sampled per instance, the random seed protocol, and the distribution over operator types), report coverage metrics such as the estimated fraction of the solution space explored and diversity statistics, and include verification experiments on a subset of smaller benchmarks where limited full enumeration is computationally feasible. These additions will demonstrate that the superior paths identified are robust to the sampling procedure rather than artifacts of it. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.2 (heuristic definition)] Correctness scoring within the dual-factor heuristic appears to rely on the same LLM family used for generation; this creates a circularity risk where the heuristic may simply reinforce the base model's biases rather than identify objectively superior paths. No independent oracle, held-out verifier, or cross-model validation of heuristic accuracy is described.

Authors: This is a substantive concern about self-reinforcement. While using the same model family enables efficient inference-time search without additional training, we acknowledge the risk. The revised §3.2 will include an explicit discussion of this limitation and new cross-model validation experiments: we will apply the heuristic trained on one model family to paths generated by a held-out different family (e.g., using Llama-based scoring on GPT-generated paths and vice versa) on a representative subset of instances, reporting agreement rates and downstream accuracy impact to show that superior paths remain consistent across models. revision: yes
Referee: [§4 (experimental results)] The reported Pareto improvement (+3.5% accuracy, -22% length) is presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or breakdown by benchmark difficulty; it is therefore unclear whether the gains are robust or driven by a subset of easy cases where shorter paths happen to coincide with correct ones.

Authors: We concur that greater statistical rigor and stratification are needed. In the revised §4, we will add error bars derived from multiple runs with varied random seeds, include statistical significance tests (paired t-tests for length and McNemar's test for accuracy), and provide a difficulty-stratified breakdown (e.g., easy/medium/hard subsets based on baseline model performance) across all benchmarks. This will confirm that the reported Pareto gains hold consistently rather than being driven by easy cases alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces NCoTS as a search-based framework that characterizes the reasoning solution space to identify sparse superior paths and navigates them via a dual-factor heuristic optimizing correctness and cost. All central claims rest on empirical measurements against external benchmarks rather than any self-referential definitions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps reduce by construction to the inputs; the derivation remains independent and externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that superior reasoning paths exist and are discoverable by the proposed heuristic; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Sparse superior reasoning paths exist that are simultaneously more accurate and concise than standard outputs
Abstract states this is revealed by quantitatively characterizing the solution space.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5473 in / 1111 out tokens · 32954 ms · 2026-05-16T13:18:31.456084+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

dual-factor heuristic function H(ht, o) ... Success Potential + λ· Efficiency Progress ... η = (performance gain)^2 · (computational savings)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection.lean branch_selection echoes

?

echoes
ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

sparse superior reasoning paths that are simultaneously more accurate and concise

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Freeze Deep, Train Shallow: Interpretable Layer Allocation for Continued Pre-Training
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Freezing deep layers and training shallow layers during continued pre-training of LLMs outperforms full fine-tuning and the opposite allocation on C-Eval and CMMLU, guided by a new layer-sensitivity diagnostic.
ATTNPO: Attention-Guided Process Supervision for Efficient Reasoning
cs.CL 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

ATTNPO guides process-supervised RL with intrinsic attention signals to shorten reasoning traces while raising accuracy on nine benchmarks.
One Refiner to Unlock Them All: Inference-Time Reasoning Elicitation via Reinforcement Query Refinement
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

ReQueR trains a single RL-based query refiner with an adaptive curriculum to decompose raw queries into structured logic, delivering 1.7-7.2% absolute gains on reasoning tasks across diverse LLMs and generalizing to u...
LayerTracer: A Joint Task-Particle and Vulnerable-Layer Analysis framework for Arbitrary Large Language Model Architectures
cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

LayerTracer defines task particles as the first layer where target token probability rises sharply and vulnerable layers via maximum JS divergence after masking, showing task particles in deep layers and greater robus...
ActorMind: Emulating Human Actor Reasoning for Speech Role-Playing
cs.SD 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

ActorMind is a four-agent chain-of-thought framework that emulates human actors to produce spontaneous, emotion-infused speech responses for role-playing scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code

Evaluating large language models trained on code.Preprint, arXiv:2107.03374. Qiguang Chen, Dengyun Peng, Jinhao Liu, HuiKang Su, Jiannan Guan, Libo Qin, and Wanxiang Che. 2025a. Aware first, think less: Dynamic boundary self-awareness drives extreme reasoning efficiency in large language models.Preprint, arXiv:2508.11582. Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jinhao Li...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[2]

Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

Training verifiers to solve math word prob- lems.Preprint, arXiv:2110.14168. Yingqian Cui, Pengfei He, Jingying Zeng, Hui Liu, Xi- anfeng Tang, Zhenwei Dai, Yan Han, Chen Luo, Jing Huang, Zhen Li, Suhang Wang, Yue Xing, Jiliang Tang, and Qi He. 2025. Stepwise perplexity-guided refinement for efficient chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.Pr...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[3]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capa- bility in llms via reinforcement learning.Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948. Bowen Ding, Yuhan Chen, Futing Wang, Lingfeng Ming, and Tao Lin. 2025a. Do thinking tokens help or trap? towards more efficient large reasoning model. Preprint, arXiv:2506.23840. Dujian Ding, Ankur Mallick, Shaokun Zhang, Chi Wang, Daniel Madri...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[4]

Neural Architecture Search: A Survey

Neural architecture search: A survey.Preprint, arXiv:1808.05377. Jonathan St BT Evans. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59(1):255–278. Siqi Fan, Bowen Qin, Peng Han, Shuo Shang, Yequan Wang, and Aixin Sun. 2025. The price of a second thought: On the evaluation of reasoning efficiency in large...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[5]

Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang

Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training.Preprint, arXiv:2309.17179. Yichao Fu, Junda Chen, Siqi Zhu, Zheyu Fu, Zhong- dongming Dai, Yonghao Zhuang, Yian Ma, Aurick Qiao, Tajana Rosing, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2025a. Efficiently scaling llm reasoning with certain- dex.Preprint, arXiv:2412.20993. Yichao Fu, Junda C...

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Amirhosein Ghasemabadi, Keith G

How far are we from optimal reasoning effi- ciency?Preprint, arXiv:2506.07104. Amirhosein Ghasemabadi, Keith G. Mills, Baochun Li, and Di Niu. 2025. Guided by gut: Efficient test-time scaling with reinforced intrinsic confidence.Preprint, arXiv:2505.20325. Olga Golovneva, Sean O’Brien, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Tianlu Wang, Luke Zettlemoyer, Maryam Fazel- Zaran...

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Pengbo Hu, Ji Qi, Xingyu Li, Hong Li, Xinqi Wang, Bing Quan, Ruiyu Wang, and Yi Zhou

Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning.Preprint, arXiv:2504.01296. Pengbo Hu, Ji Qi, Xingyu Li, Hong Li, Xinqi Wang, Bing Quan, Ruiyu Wang, and Yi Zhou. 2023. Tree-of-mixed-thought: Combining fast and slow thinking for multi-hop visual reasoning.Preprint, arXiv:2308.09658. Jiameng Huang, Baijiong Lin, Guhao Feng, Jier...

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

Henrik Klagges, Robert Dahlke, Fabian Klemm, Ben- jamin Merkel, Daniel Klingmann, David A

C3ot: Generating shorter chain-of-thought without compromising effectiveness.Preprint, arXiv:2412.11664. Henrik Klagges, Robert Dahlke, Fabian Klemm, Ben- jamin Merkel, Daniel Klingmann, David A. Reiss, and Dan Zecha. 2025. Assembly of experts: Linear-time construction of the chimera llm variants with emergent and adaptable behaviors.Preprint, arXiv:2506....

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

Wei Liu, Ruochen Zhou, Yiyun Deng, Yuzhen Huang, Junteng Liu, Yuntian Deng, Yizhe Zhang, and Junx- ian He

Can language models learn to skip steps? Preprint, arXiv:2411.01855. Wei Liu, Ruochen Zhou, Yiyun Deng, Yuzhen Huang, Junteng Liu, Yuntian Deng, Yizhe Zhang, and Junx- ian He. 2025c. Learn to reason efficiently with adaptive length-based reward shaping.Preprint, arXiv:2505.15612. Xin Liu and Lu Wang. 2025. Answer convergence as a signal for early stopping...

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms

Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms.Preprint, arXiv:1206.2944. Jiwon Song, Dongwon Jo, Yulhwa Kim, and Jae-Joon Kim. 2025a. Reasoning path compression: Com- pressing generation trajectories for efficient llm rea- soning.Preprint, arXiv:2505.13866. Mingyang Song and Mao Zheng. 2025. Walk before you run! concise llm reasoning via ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[11]

MnasNet: Platform-Aware Neural Architecture Search for Mobile

Mnasnet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile.Preprint, arXiv:1807.11626. Mingxing Tan and Quoc V . Le. 2020. Efficientnet: Re- thinking model scaling for convolutional neural net- works.Preprint, arXiv:1905.11946. Siao Tang, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, and Xinchao Wang. 2025. Concisehint: Boosting efficient reason- ing via continuous concise...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[12]

Preprint, arXiv:2506.05256

Just enough thinking: Efficient reasoning with adaptive length penalties reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:2506.05256. Yang Xiao, Jiashuo Wang, Ruifeng Yuan, Chunpu Xu, Kaishuai Xu, Wenjie Li, and Pengfei Liu

work page arXiv
[13]

Yuxi Xie, Kenji Kawaguchi, Yiran Zhao, Xu Zhao, Min-Yen Kan, Junxian He, and Qizhe Xie

Limopro: Reasoning refinement for ef- ficient and effective test-time scaling.Preprint, arXiv:2505.19187. Yuxi Xie, Kenji Kawaguchi, Yiran Zhao, Xu Zhao, Min-Yen Kan, Junxian He, and Qizhe Xie. 2023. Self-evaluation guided beam search for reasoning. Preprint, arXiv:2305.00633. Fengli Xu, Qianyue Hao, Zefang Zong, Jingwei Wang, Yunke Zhang, Jingyi Wang, Xi...

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

So", "Wait

Distilling system 2 into system 1.Preprint, arXiv:2407.06023. Xiangning Yu, Zhuohan Wang, Linyi Yang, Haox- uan Li, Anjie Liu, Xiao Xue, Jun Wang, and Mengyue Yang. 2025b. Causal sufficiency and neces- sity improves chain-of-thought reasoning.Preprint, arXiv:2506.09853. Ye Yu, Yaoning Yu, and Haohan Wang. 2025c. Premise: Scalable and strategic prompt opti...

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

and OpenAI o1 (OpenAI et al., 2024). We categorize existing efficient reasoning approaches into four main paradigms: Reinforcement Learn- ing (RL) with length reward design, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with variable-length data, dy- namic reasoning paradigms during inference, and prompt-guided efficiency. C.1.1 RL with Length Reward Design Reinforcement ...

work page 2024
[16]

Think for N tokens

integrates a length penalty into its policy optimization (a variant of online policy mirror de- scent) to facilitate effective model merging and control long CoT activations. 01-Pruner (Luo et al., 2025c) introduces a Length-Harmonizing Reward combined with a PPO-style loss, optimizing the ratio of CoT lengths between a reference model and the student to ...

work page 2025
[17]

employs SimPO (Meng et al., 2024) with a constructed length-preference dataset based on a token-length budget, while Arora et al. (Arora and Zanette, 2025) utilize length-based rewards condi- tioned on correctness, assigning higher scores to 24 Short Name Venue Year Demystifying Long (Yeo et al., 2025) ICML 2025 ASRR (Zhang et al., 2025g) EMNLP 2025 Conci...

work page 2024
[18]

reduces tokens based on semantic impor- tance estimation. In during-reasoning compression, Learn to Skip (Liu et al., 2024) adopts a human- like step-skipping method, first manually creating concise solutions and then training the model to intrinsically skip steps. Token-Budget (Han et al.,

work page 2024
[19]

Self-Training (Munkhbat et al., 2025) uses Best-of-N sampling to select the shortest cor- rect reasoning path as training data

employs a binary search to find optimal to- ken budgets and trains the model to follow these constraints. Self-Training (Munkhbat et al., 2025) uses Best-of-N sampling to select the shortest cor- rect reasoning path as training data. CoT-Valve (Ma et al., 2025b) progressively mixes parameters of long-reasoning and non-reasoning models to gen- erate variab...

work page 2025
[20]

filters out excessively short or long paths 25 Short Name Venue Year Stepwise (Cui et al., 2025) ACL 2025 CoT-Valve (Ma et al., 2025b) ACL 2025 Token-Budget (Han et al., 2025) ACL 2025 Self-Training (Munkhbat et al., 2025) ACL 2025 C3oT (Kang et al., 2024) AAAI 2025 ReCUT (Jin et al., 2025) EMNLP 2025 ConCISE (Qiao et al., 2025) EMNLP 2025 TokenSkip (Xia ...

work page 2025
[21]

gist tokens,

utilizes confidence scores to implement early stopping in sampling. Consistency-Based Reason- ing: ST-BoN (Wang et al., 2025i) leverages the consistency of latent embeddings to truncate in- ferior samples early, serving as a proxy for an- swer correctness. Summarization-Based Reason- ing: LightThinker (Zhang et al., 2025b) trains mod- els to compress inte...

work page 2025
[22]

be con- cise,

(TALE-EP) estimates a minimal token re- quirement and explicitly prompts the model to ad- here to it. Chain of Draft (CoD) (Xu et al., 2025b) encourages the model to write only a minimum draft (e.g., limiting steps to 5 words), finding that this preserves accuracy while reducing verbosity. Token Complexity (Lee et al., 2025a) analyzes the trade-off betwee...

work page 2024
[23]

Similarly, (Srivastava et al., 2025) provides fine-grained analysis of overthinking patterns in basic math

and (Zhang et al., 2025f) are designed to trig- ger and measure excessive verbosity on trivial or intuitive tasks, revealing a deep-seated reasoning bias. Similarly, (Srivastava et al., 2025) provides fine-grained analysis of overthinking patterns in basic math. To evaluate mitigation strategies and model calibration, benchmarks such as (Pu et al.,

work page 2025
[24]

and (Li et al., 2025g) introduce metrics like token efficiency and CoT precision/recall. Moving towards a holistic evaluation, unified frameworks like (Aggarwal et al., 2025) and (Huang et al., 2025b) formalize the dual challenge of prevent- ing waste on easy tasks while ensuring sufficient thought for hard ones, using composite scores like the E3-Score. ...

work page 2025
[25]

Tree of Chains

and SFT (Kang et al., 2024; Ma et al., 2025b; Xia et al., 2025; Yu et al., 2024) approaches that enforce efficiency via static training objectives, our method avoids inducing a fixed length bias. We instead formulate efficiency as a dynamic search objective. This decoupling enables adaptive com- pute allocation; the model expands reasoning for complex que...

work page 2024
[26]

While powerful, graph-based methods incur significant computa- tional overhead due to the complexity of managing arbitrary dependencies

utilize graph structures to model complex dependencies where a thought may depend on mul- tiple non-consecutive precursors. While powerful, graph-based methods incur significant computa- tional overhead due to the complexity of managing arbitrary dependencies. C.2.2 Search Algorithms and Planning Parallel to structural definitions, significant re- search ...

work page 2025
[27]

architecture

that utilize weight sharing within a supernet (Pham et al., 2018). Furthermore, resource-aware NAS has gained traction, where objective functions are modified to penalize computational costs such as FLOPs or latency (Tan et al., 2019), explicitly balancing performance with efficiency (Cai et al., 2019). Similar principles of architecture optimiza- tion an...

work page 2018