Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

AdaptR1: Reinforcement Learning Based Adaptive Interleaved Thinking in Multi-hop Question Answering

Yuxin Wang, Jiahao Lu, Qifeng Wu, Shicheng Fang, Chuanyuan Tan, Yining Zheng, Xuanjing Huang, Xipeng Qiu · May 29, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. However, this approach often leads to ``over-thinking,'' where models generate unnecessarily long reasoning traces for simple queries and incur avoidable inference cost. While recent work has explored adaptive reasoning, existing methods typically make a single query-level decision about whether to reason. This overlooks the dynamic nature of multi-step tasks, where the need for explicit reasoning varies across intermediate stages. To address this limitation, we introduce AdaptR1, a Reinforcement Learning (RL) based framework for adaptive interleaved thinking in multi-hop Question Answering (QA). Unlike previous approaches that require Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) for cold-start initialization, AdaptR1 uses a fully RL-based strategy with a quality-gated efficiency reward to dynamically allocate reasoning budgets at each step. Under the Graph-R1 setting, AdaptR1 reduces average think tokens by 69.71\%, with a 90.35\% reduction on HotpotQA, while maintaining performance comparable to or better than standard baselines. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that overthinking in multi-hop reasoning is not uniformly distributed but occurs predominantly during the initial planning stages, highlighting the effectiveness of step-wise adaptive budget allocation.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Long Horizon tasks

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.
  • However, this approach often leads to ``over-thinking,'' where models generate unnecessarily long reasoning traces for simple queries and incur avoidable inference cost.
  • While recent work has explored adaptive reasoning, existing methods typically make a single query-level decision about whether to reason.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.