InfoDensity: Rewarding Information-Dense Traces for Efficient Reasoning
Chengwei Wei, Jung-jae Kim, Longyin Zhang, Shengkai Chen, Nancy F. Chen
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Large Language Models (LLMs) with extended reasoning capabilities often generate verbose and redundant reasoning traces, incurring unnecessary computational cost. While existing reinforcement learning approaches address this by optimizing final response length, they neglect the quality of intermediate reasoning steps, leaving models vulnerable to reward hacking. We argue that verbosity is not merely a length problem, ...
but a symptom of poor intermediate reasoning quality. To investigate this, we conduct an empirical study tracking the conditional entropy of the answer distribution across reasoning steps. We find that high-quality reasoning traces exhibit two consistent properties: low uncertainty convergence and monotonic progress. These findings suggest that high-quality reasoning traces are informationally dense, that is, each step contributes meaningful entropy reduction relative to the total reasoning length. Motivated by this, we propose InfoDensity, a reward framework for RL training that combines an AUC-based reward and a monotonicity reward as a unified measure of reasoning quality, weighted by a length scaling term that favors achieving equivalent quality more concisely. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that InfoDensity matches or surpasses state-of-the-art baselines in accuracy while significantly reducing token usage, achieving a strong accuracy-efficiency trade-off.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning / puzzle solving | GPQA | Accuracy | 23.3 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Large Language Models (LLMs) with extended reasoning capabilities often generate verbose and redundant reasoning traces, incurring unnecessary computational cost.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: Reinforcement learning.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hugging Face artifacts
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.
Research context
Tasks
Reasoning / puzzle solving
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
Natural Language Processing
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.