Tian Liang, Wenxiang Jiao, Zhiwei He, Jiahao Xu, Haitao Mi, Dong Yu
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities but suffer from cognitive inefficiencies like "overthinking" simple problems and "underthinking" complex ones. While existing methods that use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) or reinforcement learning (RL) with token-length rewards can improve efficiency, they often do so at the cost of accuracy. This paper introduces DeepCompress, a novel framework ...
that simultaneously enhances both the accuracy and efficiency of LRMs. We challenge the prevailing approach of consistently favoring shorter reasoning paths, showing that longer responses can contain a broader range of correct solutions for difficult problems. DeepCompress employs an adaptive length reward mechanism that dynamically classifies problems as "Simple" or "Hard" in real-time based on the model's evolving capability. It encourages shorter, more efficient reasoning for "Simple" problems while promoting longer, more exploratory thought chains for "Hard" problems. This dual-reward strategy enables the model to autonomously adjust its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) length, compressing reasoning for well-mastered problems and extending it for those it finds challenging. Experimental results on challenging mathematical benchmarks show that DeepCompress consistently outperforms baseline methods, achieving superior accuracy while significantly improving token efficiency.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reinforcement learning | MATH | Accuracy | 50.4 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Reinforcement learning | MATH | Accuracy | 28.9 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities but suffer from cognitive inefficiencies like "overthinking" simple problems and "underthinking" complex ones.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Reinforcement learning
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
None detected
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.