analiza aiqbench
This empirical study identifies "reasoning-trace overflow" as a critical bottleneck in open-weight reasoning models, where excessive token consumption on internal logic prevents the generation of usable code. The findings demonstrate that explicit reasoning is highly conditional, offering significant benefits for complex algorithmic tasks while risking complete output failure on harder benchmarks due to repetitive loops or unbounded inference. Consequently, treating reasoning as a controllable resource with specific budgeting mechanisms or disabling strategies is essential for optimizing token efficiency and ensuring reliable code generation.
Reasoning-Trace Overflow in Code Generation: An Empirical Study of Explicit Reasoning Models
arXiv:2611.06095v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explicit reasoning can help language models generate code, but it also introduces a practical risk: the model may spend so much of its output budget reasoning that it never produces usable code. We study this behaviour in relatively small open-weight reasoning models, framing it as reasoning-trace overflow. Across seven models and six code benchmark settings, we measure how much of a fixed 32k-token output budget is spent on reasoning, whether that reasoning improves pass@1, and whether lightweight inference-time controls can mitigate overflow. Our results show that the value of reasoning is highly conditional. Overflow is rare on simpler function-level tasks, but becomes common on harder code-generation benchmarks and for particular model families: on several model--benchmark pairs, more than half of generations exhaust the full 32k-token budget while still reasoning. Most complete overflow is associated with repetitive reasoning loops, although substantial long reasoning also occurs without looping. Disabling reasoning can therefore be competitive for overflow-prone models, simply because it ensures that an answer is produced. At the same time, reasoning remains valuable for stronger models on harder algorithmic and code-understanding tasks. Finally, prompt steering can substantially reduce overflow for some models but is inconsistent, while budgeted transitions provide more direct control and can improve both performance and token efficiency for overflow-prone models. These findings suggest that explicit reasoning should be treated as a controllable resource for code generation, rather than an always-on capability.
Abstract:Explicit reasoning can help language models generate code, but it also introduces a practical risk: the model may spend so much of its output budget reasoning that it never produces usable code. We study this behaviour in relatively small open-weight reasoning models, framing it as reasoning-trace overflow. Across seven models and six code benchmark settings, we measure how much of a fixed 32k-token output budget is spent on reasoning, whether that reasoning improves pass@1, and whether lightweight inference-time controls can mitigate overflow. Our results show that the value of reasoning is highly conditional. Overflow is rare on simpler function-level tasks, but becomes common on harder code-generation benchmarks and for particular model families: on several model--benchmark pairs, more than half of generations exhaust the full 32k-token budget while still reasoning. Most complete overflow is associated with repetitive reasoning loops, although substantial long reasoning also occurs without looping. Disabling reasoning can therefore be competitive for overflow-prone models, simply because it ensures that an answer is produced. At the same time, reasoning remains valuable for stronger models on harder algorithmic and code-understanding tasks. Finally, prompt steering can substantially reduce overflow for some models but is inconsistent, while budgeted transitions provide more direct control and can improve both performance and token efficiency for overflow-prone models. These findings suggest that explicit reasoning should be treated as a controllable resource for code generation, rather than an always-on capability.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2611.06095 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2611.06095v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06095 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 329 cuvinte