Qiuzhi Liu

Yue Wang, Qiuzhi Liu, Jiahao Xu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's o1 have demonstrated remarkable abilities in complex reasoning tasks by scaling test-time compute and exhibiting human-like deep thinking. However, we identify a phenomenon we term underthinking, where o1-like LLMs frequently switch between different reasoning thoughts without sufficiently exploring promising paths to reach a correct solution. This behavior leads to inadequate depth of reasoning and decreased performance, particularly on challenging mathematical problems. To systematically analyze this issue, we conduct experiments on three challenging test sets and two representative open-source o1-like models, revealing that frequent thought switching correlates with incorrect responses. We introduce a novel metric to quantify underthinking by measuring token efficiency in incorrect answers. To address underthinking, we propose a decoding strategy with thought switching penalty TIP that discourages premature transitions between thoughts, encouraging deeper exploration of each reasoning path. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach improves accuracy across challenging datasets without requiring model fine-tuning. Our findings contribute to understanding reasoning inefficiencies in o1-like LLMs and offer a practical solution to enhance their problem-solving capabilities.

Yansi Li, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang et al.

Enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), particularly for complex tasks requiring multi-step logical deductions, remains a significant challenge. Traditional inference time scaling methods utilize scalar reward signals from process reward models to evaluate candidate reasoning steps, but these scalar rewards lack the nuanced qualitative information essential for understanding and justifying each step. In this paper, we propose a novel inference-time scaling approach -- stepwise natural language self-critique (PANEL), which employs self-generated natural language critiques as feedback to guide the step-level search process. By generating rich, human-readable critiques for each candidate reasoning step, PANEL retains essential qualitative information, facilitating better-informed decision-making during inference. This approach bypasses the need for task-specific verifiers and the associated training overhead, making it broadly applicable across diverse tasks. Experimental results on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including AIME and GPQA, demonstrate that PANEL significantly enhances reasoning performance, outperforming traditional scalar reward-based methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/puddingyeah/PANEL to support and encourage future research in this promising field.

Xingyu Chen, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang et al.

The remarkable performance of models like the OpenAI o1 can be attributed to their ability to emulate human-like long-time thinking during inference. These models employ extended chain-of-thought (CoT) processes, exploring multiple strategies to enhance problem-solving capabilities. However, a critical question remains: How to intelligently and efficiently scale computational resources during testing. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the prevalent issue of overthinking in these models, where excessive computational resources are allocated for simple problems with minimal benefit. We introduce novel efficiency metrics from both outcome and process perspectives to evaluate the rational use of computational resources by o1-like models. Using a self-training paradigm, we propose strategies to mitigate overthinking, streamlining reasoning processes without compromising accuracy. Experimental results show that our approach successfully reduces computational overhead while preserving model performance across a range of testsets with varying difficulty levels, such as GSM8K, MATH500, GPQA, and AIME.