Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2505.10832v1

In this work, we delve into the realm of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and their ability to generate explicit reasoning sequences before arriving at final answers. However, the detailed reasoning process can lead to computational overhead and latency, especially for simpler problems. To tackle this issue of overthinking, we introduce the concept of adaptive thinking in LRMs. By equipping LRMs with the capability to dynamically decide whether explicit reasoning is necessary based on problem complexity, we aim to enhance efficiency without compromising accuracy. Our approach involves incorporating a simple ellipsis ("...") into the prompt, which stochastically triggers either a thinking or no-thinking mode in the model. This reveals a latent controllability in the reasoning behavior of LRMs. Building upon R1-style distilled models, we propose AutoThink – a multi-stage reinforcement learning (RL) framework that optimizes reasoning policies through stage-wise reward shaping. AutoThink learns to engage in explicit reasoning only when essential, defaulting to succinct responses for simpler tasks. Experimental results on five mainstream mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that AutoThink achieves favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-offs compared to recent prompting and RL-based pruning methods. It can seamlessly integrate into any R1-style model, including both distilled and fine-tuned variants. Notably, AutoThink improves relative accuracy by 6.4 percent while reducing token usage by 52 percent on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, establishing a scalable and adaptive reasoning paradigm for LRMs. While AutoThink showcases promising adaptive reasoning capabilities . These include potential reward hacking issues where incomplete behavioral separation between thinking and answering may occur , and unfiltered training data utilization from the DeepScaleR dataset without task difficulty filtering. Future research directions could explore budget-aware CoT generation and curriculum-based filtering for further performance enhancements. Moreover, additional analyses on reasoning behaviors, training cost considerations, and a case study are presented in Appendix B due to space constraints. The related works section highlights existing RL-based post-training techniques for LLMs and strategies to mitigate overthinking in LRMs through self-generated short CoT signals and pseudo-thinking cues in prompts. In conclusion, our study introduces an innovative approach towards enhancing efficiency in LRMs through adaptive thinking mechanisms guided by multi-stage RL frameworks. By addressing the challenge of overthinking while maintaining performance standards .

• - Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can generate explicit reasoning sequences before arriving at final answers
• - Detailed reasoning process can lead to computational overhead and latency, especially for simpler problems
• - Introducing adaptive thinking in LRMs to dynamically decide if explicit reasoning is necessary based on problem complexity
• - Incorporating a simple ellipsis ("...") into the prompt triggers either a thinking or no-thinking mode in the model
• - AutoThink is a multi-stage reinforcement learning (RL) framework that optimizes reasoning policies through stage-wise reward shaping
• - AutoThink achieves favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-offs compared to recent prompting and RL-based pruning methods on mainstream mathematical benchmarks
• - AutoThink improves relative accuracy by 6.4 percent while reducing token usage by 52 percent on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
• - Potential issues with incomplete behavioral separation between thinking and answering, unfiltered training data utilization, and future research directions for performance enhancements

Summary- Big thinking models can figure out step-by-step reasoning before giving final answers. - Thinking too much about each step can make it take longer to find the answer, especially for easy problems. - Making big thinking models smarter by deciding when to think a lot based on how hard the problem is. - Using "..." in a question can make the model decide if it needs to think or not. - AutoThink is a smart way of teaching computers to reason better and faster. Definitions- Large Reasoning Models (LRMs): Big computer programs that think through problems step by step. - Latency: The time it takes for something to happen, like finding an answer on a computer. - Adaptive thinking: Being able to change how you think based on the problem you're trying to solve. - Ellipsis: Three dots ("...") used in writing to show that something has been left out or there's more to come. - Reinforcement Learning (RL): A way of teaching computers by rewarding them when they do something right.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have been gaining popularity in recent years due to their ability to generate explicit reasoning sequences before arriving at final answers. This detailed reasoning process allows for a deeper understanding of complex problems, but it can also lead to computational overhead and latency, especially for simpler problems. To address this issue, researchers have introduced the concept of adaptive thinking in LRMs. In their research paper titled "AutoThink: Towards Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models," the authors propose a new approach that equips LRMs with the capability to dynamically decide whether explicit reasoning is necessary based on problem complexity. This not only enhances efficiency but also maintains accuracy standards. The Approach The approach involves incorporating a simple ellipsis ("...") into the prompt, which stochastically triggers either a thinking or no-thinking mode in the model. This reveals a latent controllability in the reasoning behavior of LRMs. The authors build upon R1-style distilled models and propose AutoThink – a multi-stage reinforcement learning (RL) framework that optimizes reasoning policies through stage-wise reward shaping. How Does AutoThink Work? AutoThink learns to engage in explicit reasoning only when essential, defaulting to succinct responses for simpler tasks. It does this by using RL techniques to optimize its decision-making process at each stage of problem-solving. By doing so, it can seamlessly integrate into any R1-style model, including both distilled and fine-tuned variants. Experimental Results To evaluate the effectiveness of AutoThink, experimental results were conducted on five mainstream mathematical benchmarks. These results demonstrated that AutoThink achieves favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-offs compared to recent prompting and RL-based pruning methods. Notably, on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B dataset, AutoThink improves relative accuracy by 6.4 percent while reducing token usage by 52 percent – establishing itself as a scalable and adaptive reasoning paradigm for LRMs. Potential Challenges and Future Directions While AutoThink showcases promising adaptive reasoning capabilities, there are potential challenges that need to be addressed. These include potential reward hacking issues where incomplete behavioral separation between thinking and answering may occur, and unfiltered training data utilization from the DeepScaleR dataset without task difficulty filtering. Future research directions could explore budget-aware CoT generation and curriculum-based filtering for further performance enhancements. Moreover, additional analyses on reasoning behaviors, training cost considerations, and a case study are presented in Appendix B due to space constraints. Related Works The related works section highlights existing RL-based post-training techniques for LLMs and strategies to mitigate overthinking in LRMs through self-generated short CoT signals and pseudo-thinking cues in prompts. This shows how AutoThink builds upon previous research efforts while also introducing new ideas towards enhancing efficiency in LRMs. Conclusion In conclusion, "AutoThink: Towards Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models" introduces an innovative approach towards enhancing efficiency in LRMs through adaptive thinking mechanisms guided by multi-stage RL frameworks. By addressing the challenge of overthinking while maintaining performance standards, this research paper opens up new possibilities for future developments in the field of large reasoning models.