aiqbench analysis
This article is primarily about AI: a method for making reasoning language models produce shorter thinking traces through rejection-sampling self-training. The results are measured carefully, with confidence intervals, and they report a real trade-off, since the 80K-token test shows a small accuracy loss on hard competition mathematics. For readers, the useful takeaways are the reported 0.66x token reduction at matched accuracy on the 9B model and the finding that much of the thinking happens after the answer has already stabilized, which makes "commit" signals for adaptive sampling a practical lever.
Concise-9B: Removing the Slack from a Reasoning Model's Thinking
arXiv:2611.02278v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning models answer better when they think longer, but a thinking trace keeps going well after its answer has formed. We measure this slack in Qwen3.5-9B and remove most of it with concise self-training: two rounds of on-policy rejection-sampling fine-tuning that keep the shortest correct samples, plus a small share of answer-synthesis targets, giving Concise-9B. On 8,983 held-out problems (competition and hard mathematics, SuperGPQA, a five-area confirmation set and MMLU-Pro), Concise-9B generates 0.66x the tokens of Qwen3.5-9B at a 32K thinking budget, with accuracy equivalent within +/-1 point (-0.20 [-0.77, +0.36] points). Forcing each trace on the hard and confirmation sets to answer every 2,048 thinking tokens, we find that 54-64% of Qwen3.5-9B's thinking tokens come after the point from which every forced answer equals the final one (41-48% for Concise-9B). Stopping there would keep every answer at 0.35-0.44x the base model's tokens, but finding that point takes hindsight: stopping when three consecutive forced answers agree costs the base model 2.4-9.2 points. Concise self-training removes slack without that cost: 86% [83, 90] of the thinking tokens it saves come after the answer has formed. It has a limit: with traces continued to 80K tokens, Concise-9B solves 25 fewer of 1,276 hard problems (-25 [-49, -1]), mostly in competition mathematics. The measurement also yields a cheap commit signal for adaptive sampling that matched two-sample escalation within +/-1 point at 0.67x its tokens in a pre-registered test. Results on Qwen3.5-4B, on which the recipe was developed, and a replication on Olmo-3-7B-Think suggest that the saving depends on how verbose the base model is.
Abstract:Reasoning models answer better when they think longer, but a thinking trace keeps going well after its answer has formed. We measure this slack in Qwen3.5-9B and remove most of it with concise self-training: two rounds of on-policy rejection-sampling fine-tuning that keep the shortest correct samples, plus a small share of answer-synthesis targets, giving Concise-9B. On 8,983 held-out problems (competition and hard mathematics, SuperGPQA, a five-area confirmation set and MMLU-Pro), Concise-9B generates 0.66x the tokens of Qwen3.5-9B at a 32K thinking budget, with accuracy equivalent within +/-1 point (-0.20 [-0.77, +0.36] points). Forcing each trace on the hard and confirmation sets to answer every 2,048 thinking tokens, we find that 54-64% of Qwen3.5-9B's thinking tokens come after the point from which every forced answer equals the final one (41-48% for Concise-9B). Stopping there would keep every answer at 0.35-0.44x the base model's tokens, but finding that point takes hindsight: stopping when three consecutive forced answers agree costs the base model 2.4-9.2 points. Concise self-training removes slack without that cost: 86% [83, 90] of the thinking tokens it saves come after the answer has formed. It has a limit: with traces continued to 80K tokens, Concise-9B solves 25 fewer of 1,276 hard problems (-25 [-49, -1]), mostly in competition mathematics. The measurement also yields a cheap commit signal for adaptive sampling that matched two-sample escalation within +/-1 point at 0.67x its tokens in a pre-registered test. Results on Qwen3.5-4B, on which the recipe was developed, and a replication on Olmo-3-7B-Think suggest that the saving depends on how verbose the base model is.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2611.02278 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2611.02278v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.02278 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 359 words