To Think or Not to Think: Allocating Reasoning Where It Helps

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) has proven effective in enhancing the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), particularly in complex mathematical and programming tasks. However, this capability comes with systematic \textit{length misallocation}, in which models devote excessive reasoning to simple questions while terminating prematurely on harder ones, degrading inference efficiency with negligible accuracy improvement. Many length-adaptive methods mitigate this issue by allocating token budgets according to question difficulty, under the implicit assumption that harder questions benefit monotonically from extended reasoning. In contrast, we find that the effect of reasoning length on accuracy is concentrated on \textit{partially solvable} questions. Our further analysis reveals that explicit length rewards can produce unintended training dynamics. Motivated by these findings, we propose \textbf{CARE}---\textbf{C}ontrastive \textbf{A}ccuracy \textbf{R}eward \textbf{E}stimation---which compares the beneficial length adjustment per question from online sampled responses and applies adaptive length rewards within Group Relative Policy Optimization, with no extra hyperparameters or additional inference cost. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our method improves Pass@1 by up to \(4\%\) while simultaneously reducing reasoning length by \(37\%\), achieving higher token efficiency. Code will be available upon the acceptance of this paper.