The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates valid evaluation methods to guide downstream applications and actionable future improvements. The Item Response Theory (IRT) has recently emerged as a promising framework for evaluating LLMs via their response accuracy. Beyond simple response accuracy, LLMs' chain of thought (CoT) lengths serve as a vital indicator of their reasoning ability. To leverage the CoT length information to assist the evaluation of LLMs, we propose Latency-Response Theory (LaRT) to jointly model the response accuracy and CoT length by introducing the latent ability, latent speed, and a key correlation parameter between them. We derive an efficient estimation algorithm and establish rigorous identifiability results for the population parameters to ensure the statistical validity of estimation. Theoretical asymptotic analyses and simulation studies demonstrate LaRT's advantages over IRT in terms of higher estimation accuracy and shorter confidence intervals for latent traits. A key finding is that the asymptotic estimation precision of the latent ability under LaRT exceeds that of IRT whenever the latent ability and latent speed are correlated. We collect real responses from diverse LLMs on popular benchmark datasets. The application of LaRT reveals a strong negative correlation between the latent ability and latent speed in all benchmarks, with stronger correlation for more difficult benchmarks. This finding supports the intuition that higher reasoning ability correlates with slower speed and longer response latency. LaRT yields different LLM rankings than IRT and outperforms IRT across multiple key evaluation metrics including predictive power, item efficiency, ranking validity, and LLM evaluation efficiency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Toby-X/Latency-Response-Theory-Model.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve higher task performance with more inference-time computation, and prior works suggest this scaled reasoning may also strengthen safety by improving refusal. Yet we find the opposite: the same reasoning can be used to bypass safeguards. We introduce Chain-of-Thought Hijacking, a jailbreak attack on reasoning models. The attack pads harmful requests with long sequences of harmless puzzle reasoning. Across HarmBench, CoT Hijacking reaches a 99%, 94%, 100%, and 94% attack success rate (ASR) on Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT o4 mini, Grok 3 mini, and Claude 4 Sonnet, respectively - far exceeding prior jailbreak methods for LRMs. To understand the effectiveness of our attack, we turn to a mechanistic analysis, which shows that mid layers encode the strength of safety checking, while late layers encode the verification outcome. Long benign CoT dilutes both signals by shifting attention away from harmful tokens. Targeted ablations of attention heads identified by this analysis causally decrease refusal, confirming their role in a safety subnetwork. These results show that the most interpretable form of reasoning - explicit CoT - can itself become a jailbreak vector when combined with final-answer cues. We release prompts, outputs, and judge decisions to facilitate replication.

Autoregressive multimodal large language models have recently gained popularity for image generation, driven by advances in foundation models. To enhance alignment and detail, newer approaches employ chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, expanding user inputs into elaborated prompts prior to image synthesis. However, this strategy can introduce unnecessary redundancy -- a phenomenon we call visual overthinking -- which increases computational costs and can introduce details that contradict the original prompt. In this work, we explore how to generate more concise CoT sequences for more efficient image generation. We introduce ShortCoTI, a lightweight optimization framework that encourages more concise CoT while preserving output image quality. ShortCoTI rewards more concise prompts with an adaptive function that scales according to an estimated difficulty for each task. Incorporating this reward into a reinforcement learning paradigm reduces prompt reasoning length by 54% while maintaining or slightly improving quality metrics across multiple benchmarks (T2I-CompBench, GenEval). Qualitative analysis shows that our method eliminates verbose explanations and repetitive refinements, producing reasoning prompts that are both concise and semantically rich. As a result, ShortCoTI improves computational efficiency without compromising the fidelity or visual appeal of generated images.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves performance on complex tasks but introduces significant inference latency due to verbosity. We propose Multiround Adaptive Chain-of-Thought Compression (MACC), a framework that leverages the token elasticity phenomenon--where overly small token budgets can paradoxically increase output length--to progressively compress CoTs via multiround refinement. This adaptive strategy allows MACC to determine the optimal compression depth for each input. Our method achieves an average accuracy improvement of 5.6 percent over state-of-the-art baselines, while also reducing CoT length by an average of 47 tokens and significantly lowering latency. Furthermore, we show that test-time performance--accuracy and token length--can be reliably predicted using interpretable features like perplexity and compression rate on the training set. Evaluated across different models, our method enables efficient model selection and forecasting without repeated fine-tuning, demonstrating that CoT compression is both effective and predictable. Our code will be released in https://github.com/Leon221220/MACC.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become a pivotal approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, a significant theoretical gap persists, as traditional token-level RL frameworks fail to align with the reasoning-level nature of complex, multi-step thought processes like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). To address this challenge, we introduce CoT-Space, a novel theoretical framework that recasts LLM reasoning from a discrete token-prediction task to an optimization process within a continuous, reasoning-level semantic space. This shift in perspective serves as a conceptual bridge, revitalizing foundational principles from classical learning theory to analyze the unique dynamics of LLMs. By analyzing this process from both a noise perspective and a risk perspective, we demonstrate that the convergence to an optimal CoT length is a natural consequence of the fundamental trade-off between underfitting and overfitting. Furthermore, extensive experiments provide strong empirical validation for our theoretical findings. Our framework not only provides a coherent explanation for empirical phenomena such as overthinking but also offers a solid theoretical foundation to guide the future development of more effective and generalizable reasoning agents. We open-source our code at https://github.com/ZyGan1999/CoT-Space.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by prompting intermediate steps, improving accuracy and robustness in arithmetic, logic, and commonsense tasks. However, this benefit comes with high computational costs: longer outputs increase latency, memory usage, and KV-cache demands. These issues are especially critical in software engineering tasks where concise and deterministic outputs are required. To investigate these trade-offs, we conduct an empirical study based on code generation benchmarks. The results reveal that longer CoT does not always help. Excessive reasoning often causes truncation, accuracy drops, and latency up to five times higher, with failed outputs consistently longer than successful ones. These findings challenge the assumption that longer reasoning is inherently better and highlight the need for adaptive CoT control. Motivated by this, we propose SEER (Self-Enhancing Efficient Reasoning), an adaptive framework that compresses CoT while preserving accuracy. SEER combines Best-of-N sampling with task-aware adaptive filtering, dynamically adjusting thresholds based on pre-inference outputs to reduce verbosity and computational overhead. We then evaluate SEER on three software engineering tasks and one math task. On average, SEER shortens CoT by 42.1%, improves accuracy by reducing truncation, and eliminates most infinite loops. These results demonstrate SEER as a practical method to make CoT-enhanced LLMs more efficient and robust, even under resource constraints.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) with reinforcement learning to produce an explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) before answering produces models that consistently raise overall performance on code, math, and general-knowledge benchmarks. However, on benchmarks where LLMs currently achieve low accuracy, such as Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), they often report high self-confidence, reflecting poor calibration. Here, we test whether measurable properties of the CoT provide reliable signals of an LLM's internal confidence in its answers. We analyze three feature classes: (i) CoT length, (ii) intra-CoT sentiment volatility, and (iii) lexicographic hints, including hedging words. Using DeepSeek-R1 and Claude 3.7 Sonnet on both Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a frontier benchmark with very low accuracy, and Omni-MATH, a saturated benchmark of moderate difficulty, we find that lexical markers of uncertainty (e.g., $\textit{guess}$, $\textit{stuck}$, $\textit{hard}$) in the CoT are the strongest indicators of an incorrect response, while shifts in the CoT sentiment provide a weaker but complementary signal. CoT length is informative only on Omni-MATH, where accuracy is already high ($\approx 70\%$), and carries no signal on the harder HLE ($\approx 9\%$), indicating that CoT length predicts correctness only in the intermediate-difficulty benchmarks, i.e., inside the model's demonstrated capability, but still below saturation. Finally, we find that uncertainty indicators in the CoT are consistently more salient than high-confidence markers, making errors easier to predict than correct responses. Our findings support a lightweight post-hoc calibration signal that complements unreliable self-reported probabilities and supports safer deployment of LLMs.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by breaking complex tasks into smaller, manageable sub-tasks. Researchers have been exploring ways to guide models to generate more complex CoT processes to improve the reasoning ability of LLMs, such as long CoT and the test-time scaling law. However, for most models and tasks, does an increase in CoT length consistently lead to improved reasoning accuracy? In this paper, we observe a nuanced relationship: as the number of reasoning steps increases, performance initially improves but eventually decreases. To understand this phenomenon, we provide a piece of evidence that longer reasoning processes are increasingly susceptible to noise. We theoretically prove the existence of an optimal CoT length and derive a scaling law for this optimal length based on model capability and task difficulty. Inspired by our theory, we conduct experiments on both synthetic and real world datasets and propose Length-filtered Vote to alleviate the effects of excessively long or short CoTs. Our findings highlight the critical need to calibrate CoT length to align with model capabilities and task demands, offering a principled framework for optimizing multi-step reasoning in LLMs.