How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning
The paper investigates the redundancy in reasoning processes of large language models (LLMs). It quantifies how much reasoning can be truncated without affecting the correctness of the answers produced. The findings suggest that a significant portion of reasoning steps is unnecessary, indicating a structural issue in how these models are trained.
- ▪The study formalizes reasoning redundancy in terms of the reasoning model itself.
- ▪Redundancy levels were found to be between 61% and 93% across various models and benchmarks.
- ▪The research shows that over-thinking is a structural property of current reasoning models, not a flaw in individual models.
arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | arXiv cs.AI |
| Canonical URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23926 |
| Publication time | Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | V-VbsDS2LWMb |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2605.23926 (cs) [Submitted on 21 Apr 2026] Title:How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning Authors:Zhiyuan Zhai, Xinkai You, Wenjing Yan, Xin Wang View a PDF of the paper titled How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning, by Zhiyuan Zhai and 3 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought, paying heavily in latency, GPU time, and energy.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
