Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

CAT: Confidence-Adaptive Thinking for Efficient Reasoning of Large Reasoning Models

Qizhi Jiang, Shuo Wang, Pei Ke, Yuhang Song, Ke Qin · Jul 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Pairwise Preference
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency. However, existing compression methods predominantly apply uniform length reduction or rely on coarse-grained difficulty estimation, often leading to performance degradation on difficult problems. To address this limitation, we propose Confidence-Adaptive Thinking (CAT), a framework that incorporates the model's intrinsic self-certainty signals as confidence into the preference optimization process, which autonomously modulates reasoning lengths based on problem difficulty. Experimental results show that CAT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on reasoning accuracy across multiple benchmarks on different base models. Our work enables LRMs to effectively compress confident responses while deliberating on uncertain ones, offering a potentially robust solution for balancing accuracy and latency in practical industrial scenarios.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Experimental results show that CAT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on reasoning accuracy across multiple benchmarks on different base models."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks by leveraging long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, yet they frequently exhibit overthinking on simple queries, resulting in significant token overhead and reduced inference efficiency.
  • However, existing compression methods predominantly apply uniform length reduction or rely on coarse-grained difficulty estimation, often leading to performance degradation on difficult problems.
  • To address this limitation, we propose Confidence-Adaptive Thinking (CAT), a framework that incorporates the model's intrinsic self-certainty signals as confidence into the preference optimization process, which autonomously modulates reasoning lengths based on problem difficulty.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) 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.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address this limitation, we propose Confidence-Adaptive Thinking (CAT), a framework that incorporates the model's intrinsic self-certainty signals as confidence into the preference optimization process, which autonomously modulates…
  • Experimental results show that CAT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on reasoning accuracy across multiple benchmarks on different base models.
  • Our work enables LRMs to effectively compress confident responses while deliberating on uncertain ones, offering a potentially robust solution for balancing accuracy and latency in practical industrial scenarios.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To address this limitation, we propose Confidence-Adaptive Thinking (CAT), a framework that incorporates the model's intrinsic self-certainty signals as confidence into the preference optimization process, which autonomously modulates…
  • Experimental results show that CAT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on reasoning accuracy across multiple benchmarks on different base models.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

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