ACL Findings2026
Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models
Gaurav Srivastava, Aafiya Shamshad Hussain, Sriram Srinivasan, Xuan Wang
摘要
Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning while generating unnecessarily verbose responses.In this paper, we present LLMTHINKBENCH, a systematic benchmark and comprehensive empirical study to evaluate the efficiency of reasoning in LLMs, focusing on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking.First, we formalize the accuracy-verbosity tradeoff.Second, we introduce the Overthinking Score, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation.Third, we establish an evaluation protocol with dynamically-generated data across 14 basic math tasks.Fourth, we conduct a large-scale empirical study evaluating 53 LLMs, including reasoning and quantized variants across different reasoning budgets.Fifth, we release LLM-THINKBENCH as an open-source Python package and public leaderboard for reproducibility.Our findings reveal: 1) model performance on complex benchmarks does not translate directly to basic math reasoning; 2) reasoning models generate ∼18× more tokens while sometimes achieving lower accuracy and exhibit catastrophic collapse when tokens are constrained, dropping by up to ∼36%; 3) the accuracyverbosity relationship is non-monotonic with extended reasoning budgets yielding diminishing returns (GPT-5/o-series models show zero accuracy gain from low → medium → high reasoning effort).Our findings challenge the assumption that longer reasoning in LLMs necessarily improves mathematical reasoning.0 .5 B 0 .6 B 1 B 1 B 1 B 3 B 4 B 7 B 8 B 1 4 B 3 2 B 7 0 B 7 2 B Model Parameters (B) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Accuracy (%) (a) Model Family Scaling Comparison Llama Qwen2.5 Qwen3 0 .6 B 1 .7 B 4 B 8 B 1 4 B 3 2 B Model Parameters 0 20 40 60 80 100 Accuracy (%) (b) Token Budget Impact Full Token Budget Constrained (1024 tokens) 50.0 70.2 81.9 82.1 86.5 84.1 27.0 30.7 31.7 28.4 35.2 30.2 0 .5 B 1 .5 B 3 B 7 B 1 4 B 3 2 B 7 2 B Model Parameters 0 20 40 60 80 100 Accuracy (%) (c) Quantization Impact FP16 (Original) GPTQ 8-bit GPTQ 4-bit
问 Lune
尽管问,回答会引用原文。
Lune 会读完全文和相关的 Paper,每个回答都附上所依据的原文段落。
引用它的顶会 Paper1
它引用的 Paper12
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards 等ICLR 2024 · 3,045 次引用
- Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language ModelsMaciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger 等AAAI 2024 · 1,292 次引用
- Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentionWoosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng 等SOSP 2023 · 1,016 次引用
- Let LRMs Break Free from Overthinking via Self-Braking TuningHaoran Zhao, Yuchen Yan, Yongliang Shen, Haolei Xu 等NeurIPS 2025 · 31 次引用
- Plan and Budget: Effective and Efficient Test-Time Scaling on Reasoning Large Language ModelsJunhong Lin, Xinyue Zeng, Jie Zhu, Song Wang 等ICLR 2026 · 30 次引用
相关 Paper
- OptimalThinkingBench: Evaluating Over and Underthinking in LLMsPranjal Aggarwal, Seungone Kim, Jack Lanchantin, Sean Welleck 等ICLR 2026 · 38 次引用
- UGMathBench: A Diverse and Dynamic Benchmark for Undergraduate-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language ModelsXin Xu, Jiaxin Zhang, Tianhao Chen, Zitong Chao 等ICLR 2025
- AMO-Bench: Large Language Models Still Struggle in High School Math CompetitionsJunlin Liu, Shengnan An, Shuang Zhou, Dan Ma 等ACL Findings 2026
- BeyondBench: Contamination-Resistant Evaluation of Reasoning in Language ModelsGaurav Srivastava, Aafiya Hussain, Zhenyu Bi, Swastik Roy 等ICLR 2026 · 4 次引用
- RefineBench: Evaluating Refinement Capability of Language Models via ChecklistsYoung-Jun Lee, Seungone Kim, Byung-Kwan Lee, Minkyeong Moon 等ICLR 2026 · 13 次引用
