Jun 2026· arXiv.org· Vol abs/2606.23181· 1 citation· 44 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
DART is introduced, a training-free routing framework that samples two cheap no-think drafts, accepts direct answering when the drafts agree, and predicts a thinking budget from draft entropy when they disagree, and preserves or improves always-thinking accuracy in most settings while reducing thinking-token use.
Abstract
Hybrid reasoning models can answer directly or spend extra tokens on extended thinking. A practical router should choose between these modes for each query, so easy problems avoid unnecessary reasoning and hard problems receive enough budget to finish the answer. Existing routers move in this direction, but they typically require labeled training data or fix thinking budgets up front, ignoring answer-level evidence from the model itself. We introduce DART, a training-free routing framework that samples two cheap no-think drafts, accepts direct answering when the drafts agree, and predicts a thinking budget from draft entropy when they disagree. Across the main comparisons, DART preserves or improves always-thinking accuracy in most settings while reducing thinking-token use. Accuracy improves by up to +9.0 points on Olympiad-level math and by up to +22.5 points on code under execution-based equivalence, while thinking-token use drops by 32-73%. The Stage~1 signal extends across model scales (0.6B--32B), model families, and API-only hosted settings, with no labeled data and no gradient updates required. Our code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/DART.
This paper investigates whether there exists a token-budget threshold, below which the overhead of planning and verification hurts performance and above which it helps, and evaluates two systems on FinQA and TAT-QA financial reasoning tasks.
Thomas Nolasque, J. Grey, Calista Pham et al.· 0 citations
A reasoning model is built that adaptively chooses how much to reason for each problem, and the brief modes end up more accurate than \textsc{Long}, which shows that the router sorts problems by difficulty rather than at random.
Gijs Kassenaar, Zhao Yang, Vincent François-Lavet· 2 citations
Meta-reasoning, an inference-time harness that makes agentic meta-reasoning an explicit and structured reasoning process, keeps improving over the tested budget ranges where direct control plateaus, though its overhead can hurt at small budgets.
P. Dahal, A. Bakhtin, Taco Cohen et al.· 1 citation
Test-time compute can improve mathematical reasoning, but can short-budget runs predict how mathematical reasoning scales with additional compute? We introduce a Discovery--Execution (DE) framework that predicts the aggregate held-out scaling curves through a convolution of strategy discovery and conditional execution....
Adib Hasan, Lay Jain, Thanic Nur Samin· 0 citations
Large reasoning models (LRMs) generate long chain-of-thought traces before answering, creating significant inference overhead. Pruning can reduce this cost, but its effectiveness depends on the calibration data used to estimate parameter importance. Recent work calibrates on the model's own rollouts instead of generic...
Ha Lan Nguyen, Huy Hoang Son Tran, Trac-Duy Tran et al.· 1 citation
Large Language Models can perform multi-step reasoning and improve task performance through different forms of intermediate computation, from token-based traces to computation carried out in latent space. However, a question remains open: do these different forms of thinking rely on the same underlying mechanism? To ad...