Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many modern reasoning models, especially those with smaller parameter scales, tend to produce verbose reasoning or redundant intermediate steps, making them unable to provide answers within the user-defined token budget.
“In particular, many modern reasoning models, especially those with smaller parameter scales, tend to produce verbose reasoning or redundant intermediate steps, making them unable to provide answers within the user-defined token budget.”
From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The Introduction reports that o1-like models expend excessive tokens and thinking rounds on simple questions, supporting the claim about verbose or redundant reasoning. It does not establish that smaller-parameter models are especially prone to this problem or that overthinking prevents models from answering within a user-defined token budget; §4.2 discusses user-specified budgets only in relation to other approaches. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLonger Chain-of-Thought reasoning sequences improve performance in complex tasks but introduce significant computational overhead due to verbose and redundant outputs, known as the overthinking phenomenon.
“However, while longer CoT reasoning sequences improve performance, they also introduce significant computational overhead due to verbose and redundant outputs, known as the 'overthinking phenomenon'.”
From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The overthinking phenomenon in long CoT reasoning models refers to situations where LLMs generate excessively detailed or unnecessarily elaborate reasoning steps, ultimately reducing their problem-solving efficiency.
“The 'overthinking phenomenon' [16,171] in long CoT reasoning models refers to situations where LLMs generate excessively detailed or unnecessarily elaborate reasoning steps, ultimately reducing their problem-solving efficiency.”
From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
o1-style long thinking overshoots: models burn thousands of tokens on trivial problems.
“o1-style long thinking overshoots - models burn thousands of tokens on trivial problems [101]”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [101]
Long reasoning traces have significant inference cost and reasoning models tend to overthink.
“Recent work (Chen et al., 2024; NovaSky-Team, 2025a) highlights the significant inference cost associated with long reasoning traces and the tendency of reasoning models to overthink.”
From OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Large Reasoning Models have shown emergent behaviors such as discrepancy between thought traces and final answers and efficiency concerns through the 'overthinking phenomenon'.
“Large Reasoning Models have shown emergent behaviors such as discrepancy between thought traces and final answers [28, 29] as well as efficiency concerns through what researchers term the 'overthinking phenomenon' [30, 31, 32, 33]”
From The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- DeepSeek. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. 2025. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:275789950.
- Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
- Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769.
- David Heineman, Yao Dou, and Wei Xu. Improving minimum bayes risk decoding with multi- prompt. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 22525-22545, 2024.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In NeurIPS, 2021.
- Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. Large language models are reasoning teachers. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 14852-14882, 2023.
- Pei Ke, Bosi Wen, Zhuoer Feng, Xiao Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Jiale Cheng, Shengyuan Wang, Aohan Zeng, Yuxiao Dong, Hongning Wang, et al. Critiquellm: Scaling llm-as-critic for effective and explainable evaluation of large language model generation. corr, abs/2311.18702. detection for generative large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 9004-9017, 2023. · arXiv
- Maxim Khanov, Jirayu Burapacheep, and Yixuan Li. Args: Alignment as reward-guided search. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
- Yiwei Li, Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Boyuan Pan, Xinglin Wang, Bin Sun, Heda Wang, and Kan Li. Escape sky-high cost: Early-stopping self-consistency for multi-step reasoning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=ndR8Ytrzhh.
- Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=v8L0pN6EOi.
- Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference- free reward. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024.
- Ziyu Wan, Xidong Feng, Muning Wen, Stephen Marcus McAleer, Ying Wen, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023b. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw.
- Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022a.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shojaee, P., Mirzadeh, I., Alizadeh vahid, K., Horton, M., Bengio, S., & Farajtabar, M. (2025) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 · doi:10.52202/085713-3603 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models
Sui, Y., Chuang, Y.-N., Wang, G., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Yuan, J., Liu, H., Wen, A., Zhong, S., Zou, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“For instance, the "overthinking problem" arises when answering a simple question [10] like, " what is the answer of 2 plus 3?”
OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models
Guha, E., Marten, R., Keh, S., Raoof, N., Smyrnis, G., Bansal, H., Nezhurina, M., Mercat, J., Vu, T., Sprague, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04178 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
SEER: Self-Enhancing Chain-of-Thought Compression for Reasoning Models
Huang, K., Liu, S., Hu, X., Xu, T., Bao, L., & Xia, X. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3832120 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Anthropomorphisme : des animaux aux machines
Nahon, M., Khamassi, M., Freire, I. T., Paternotte, C., & Chatila, R. (2025) · Socio-anthropologie · doi:10.4000/15qdj
Multi-Agent Reasoning Improves Compute Efficiency: Pareto-Optimal Test-Time Scaling
Wunderlich, F. V., Kaesberg, L. B., Wahle, J. P., Ruas, T., & Gipp, B. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-srw.1
“While some tasks benefit from increased compute usage, others may not require it or could even suffer from an overthinking phenomenon (Ghosal et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2024).”
Quantization Hurts Reasoning? An Empirical Study on Quantized Reasoning Models
Liu, R., Sun, Y., Zhang, M., Bai, H., Yu, X., Yu, T., Yuan, C., & Hou, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04823
“One can also reduce the reasoning lengths via direct performance optimization (DPO), where short and long CoT data can be curated as positive and negative data pairs (Chen et al., 2024; Team et al., 2025), or merging the long CoT model with a short CoT model (Team et al., 2025).”
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“First, efficiency : o1-style long thinking over-shoots — models burn thousands of tokens on trivial problems [101] — and incorrect traces exhibit more unproductive self-reflection than correct ones even at matched length, motivating segment-level credit assignment to teach models when to stop [102].”
FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents
Gao, H., Liu, Y., He, Y., Dou, L., Du, C., Deng, Z., Hooi, B., Lin, M., & Pang, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15257
Luo, Q.-W., Ren, S., Chen, X., Liu, R., Fang, J., Tan, N., & Huang, S.-J. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3817726
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chen, X., Xu, J., Liang, T., He, Z., Pang, J., Yu, D., Song, L., Liu, Q., Zhou, M., Zhang, Z., Wang, R., Tu, Z., Mi, H., & Yu, D.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Tencent (China) (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2412.21187
- OpenAlex
- W4405957960
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- overthinking, chain-of-thought reasoning, computational resource efficiency, efficiency indicators, self-training, mathematical problem solving
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
