REVIEW 5 cited by
Thought Manipulation: External Thought Can Be Efficient for Large Reasoning Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent advancements in large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated the effectiveness of scaling test-time computation to enhance reasoning capabilities on various tasks. However, LRMs often suffer from an ``overthinking'' problem, where the model generates excessively redundant reasoning steps with limited performance gains. In this work, we empirically reveal an important characteristic of LRM behaviors that placing external CoTs generated by smaller models between the thinking token (\texttt{<think>} and \texttt{</think>}) can effectively manipulate the model to generate fewer thoughts. Building on this finding, we propose a simple yet efficient pipeline, \Method, to enable LRMs to bypass unnecessary intermediate steps, thereby significantly reducing computational costs. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the utility and efficiency of \Method. For instance, when applied to QwQ-32B on the LiveBench/Code dataset, \Method keeps the original performance while reducing output token counts by approximately 30\%, with minimal overhead introduced by the CoT generator. Furthermore, we identify two suboptimal modes, blindly following flawed external thoughts and unnecessary rethinking, and show that simple mitigations, such as difficulty-aware fallbacks, can further improve performance. Overall, \Method offers a practical, general, and efficient way to optimize LRM inference, making powerful reasoning models more accessible and scalable for real-world applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Performative Thinking? The Brittle Correlation Between CoT Length and Problem Complexity
A transformer trained to imitate A* produces traces whose length reflects similarity to training data, not true problem complexity, so long chain-of-thought should not be read as more 'thinking'.
-
VeriThinker: Learning to Verify Makes Reasoning Model Efficient
VeriThinker shows that fine-tuning a reasoning model only on a solution-verification task reduces chain-of-thought length on MATH500 and AIME by 20-45% while preserving or slightly improving accuracy.
-
Long or short CoT? Investigating Instance-level Switch of Large Reasoning Models
A fine-tuned selector can pick long or short chain-of-thought per question and per token budget, cutting reasoning-model inference cost by roughly 50 percent without sacrificing accuracy.
-
When Can Large Reasoning Models Save Thinking? Mechanistic Analysis of Behavioral Divergence in Reasoning
QwQ-32B under a save-thinking prompt exhibits three modes, no thinking, explicit thinking, and implicit thinking, with no-thinking saving tokens but losing accuracy while explicit and implicit thinking preserve accuracy.
-
Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey
A comprehensive review that categorizes methods for shortening and adaptively triggering chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.