arXiv · 2503.17979
Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities
Abstract
Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), such as OpenAI's o1/o3 and DeepSeek-R1, have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks through human-like deliberative thinking and long chain-of-thought reasoning. However, our systematic evaluation across various model families (DeepSeek, Qwen, and LLaMA) and scales (7B to 32B) reveals that acquiring these deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs, including notable declines in helpfulness and harmlessness, alongside substantially increased inference costs. Importantly, we demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks. Our empirical insights underline the critical need for developing more versatile LRMs capable of dynamically allocating inference-time compute according to specific task characteristics.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Weixiang Zhao, Xingyu Sui, Jiahe Guo, Yulin Hu, Yang Deng, Yanyan Zhao, Xuda Zhi, Yongbo Huang, Hao He, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Bing Qin. 2025-03-23. Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17979
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.