Done Is Better than Perfect: Unlocking Efficient Reasoning by Structured Multi-Turn Decomposition
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are criticized for the excessively lengthy Chain-of-Thought (CoT) to derive the final answer, suffering from high first-token and overall latency. Typically, the CoT of LRMs mixes multiple thinking units; each unit attempts to produce a candidate answer to the original query. Hence, a natural idea to improve efficiency is to reduce the unit number. Yet, the fact that the thinking units in vanilla CoT cannot be explicitly managed renders doing so challenging. This paper introduces Multi-Turn Decomposition (MinD) to decode conventional CoT into a sequence of explicit, structured, and turn-wise interactions to bridge the gap. In MinD, the model provides a multi-turn response to the query, where each turn embraces a thinking unit and yields a corresponding answer. The subsequent turns can reflect, verify, revise, or explore alternative approaches to both the thinking and answer parts of earlier ones. This not only makes the answer delivered more swiftly, but also enables explicit controls over the iterative reasoning process (i.e., users may halt or continue at any turn). We follow a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) then reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm to realize MinD. We first rephrase the outputs of an LRM into multi-turn formats by prompting another LLM, and then tune the LRM with such data. Observing that the tuned model tends to consume even more tokens than the original one (probably due to that the multi-turn formats introduce additional answer tokens), we advocate leveraging RL algorithms like GRPO to prioritize correct outputs with fewer turns. Trained on the MATH dataset using R1-Distill models, MinD can achieve up to ~70% reduction in both output token usage and time to first token (TTFT), while maintaining competitive performance on reasoning benchmarks such as MATH-500, AIME24, AMC23, and GPQA-Diamond.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 11 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.
Builds on
11 of 37 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025SpecReason: Fast and Accurate Inference-Time Compute via Speculative Reasoning10 Apr
- 2025TokenSkip: Controllable Chain-of-Thought Compression in LLMs17 Feb
Other references · 9
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Frameworkcited by 2,057
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
- 2025Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMscited by 1,210
- 2025R1-Searcher: Incentivizing the Search Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 336
- 2025CPPO: Accelerating the Training of Group Relative Policy Optimization-Based Reasoning Modelscited by 96
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 5.
11 papers.
- 2025Don't Overthink It: A Survey of Efficient R1-style Large Reasoning Modelscited by 37
- 2025Metacognitive Reuse: Turning Recurring LLM Reasoning Into Concise Behaviorscited by 30
- 2025Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Surveycited by 18
- 2025ReCUT: Balancing Reasoning Length and Accuracy in LLMs via Stepwise Trails and Preference Optimizationcited by 14
- 2026Self-Compression of Chain-of-Thought via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 13
- 2025PEAR: Phase Entropy Aware Reward for Efficient Reasoningcited by 5
- 2026Self-Verification Dilemma: Experience-Driven Suppression of Overused Checking in LLM Reasoningcited by 3
- 2025Adaptive Dual Reasoner: Large Reasoning Models Can Think Efficiently by Hybrid Reasoningcited by 2
- 2026Fewer Tokens, Smaller Cache: Reward-Coordinated Efficient Reasoningcited by 2
- 2026Learning to Learn from Language Feedback with Social Meta-Learningcited by 1
- 2026AdaThinking-E: One-Token Entropy Regulation for Adaptive Thinkingcited by 0
- 2026Fewer Tokens, Smaller Cache: Reward-Coordinated Efficient Reasoning5 Aug 2026
- 2026AdaThinking-E: One-Token Entropy Regulation for Adaptive Thinking26 Jun 2026
- 2026Learning to Learn from Language Feedback with Social Meta-Learning18 Feb 2026
- 2026Self-Verification Dilemma: Experience-Driven Suppression of Overused Checking in LLM Reasoning3 Feb 2026
- 2026Self-Compression of Chain-of-Thought via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning29 Jan 2026
- 2025Adaptive Dual Reasoner: Large Reasoning Models Can Think Efficiently by Hybrid Reasoning11 Oct 2025
- 2025PEAR: Phase Entropy Aware Reward for Efficient Reasoning9 Oct 2025
- 2025Metacognitive Reuse: Turning Recurring LLM Reasoning Into Concise Behaviors16 Sep 2025
- 2025Don't Overthink It: A Survey of Efficient R1-style Large Reasoning Models4 Aug 2025
- 2025Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey13 Jul 2025
- 2025ReCUT: Balancing Reasoning Length and Accuracy in LLMs via Stepwise Trails and Preference Optimization12 Jun 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025ThinkBrake: Efficient Reasoning via Log-Probability Margin Guided Decoding
- 2025THINK-Bench: Evaluating Thinking Efficiency and Chain-of-Thought Quality of Large Reasoning Models
- 2026TERMINATOR: Learning Optimal Exit Points for Early Stopping in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
- 2025Early Stopping Chain-of-thoughts in Large Language Models
- 2025Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey
- 2026DoubtLess: Training-Free Contrastive Decoding for Efficient Reasoning
- 2025Think or Not? Exploring Thinking Efficiency in Large Reasoning Models via an Information-Theoretic Lens
- 2025The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity