# Is Long-to-Short a Free Lunch? Investigating Inconsistency and Reasoning Efficiency in LRMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19492 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19492/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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 31 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14008/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00114/) (2021)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13860/) (2023)
- [Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09390/) (2023)
- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [O1-Pruner: Length-Harmonizing Fine-Tuning for O1-Like Reasoning Pruning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12570/) (2025)
- [A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Generalized Nested Jailbreak Prompts can Fool Large Language Models Easily](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08268/) (2023)
- [Training Language Models to Reason Efficiently](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04463/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Can Be Effective Without Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09858/) (2025)
- [Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10162/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [C3oT: Generating Shorter Chain-of-Thought without Compromising Effectiveness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11664/) (2024)
- [Reward Tampering Problems and Solutions in Reinforcement Learning: A Causal Influence Diagram Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04734/) (2019)
- [SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08177/) (2025)
- [Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07927/) (2024)
- [Self-Training Elicits Concise Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20122/) (2025)
- [How Well do LLMs Compress Their Own Chain-of-Thought? A Token Complexity Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01141/) (2025)
- [Who's asking? User personas and the mechanics of latent misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12094/) (2024)
- [Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05915/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09662/) (2025)
- [LenGuard-GPC: Length Guarding with Guided-Prompt Consistency for Spatial Reasoning Reinforce Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.17243/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers, yet this strength introduces the risk of overthinking, where excessive token generation occurs even for simple tasks. While recent work in efficient reasoning seeks to reduce reasoning length while preserving accuracy, it remains unclear whether such optimization is truly a free lunch. Drawing on the intuition that compressing reasoning may reduce the robustness of model responses and lead models to omit key reasoning steps, we investigate whether efficient reasoning strategies introduce behavioral inconsistencies. To systematically assess this, we introduce ICBENCH, a benchmark designed to measure inconsistency in LRMs across three dimensions: inconsistency across task settings (ITS), inconsistency between training objectives and learned behavior (TR-LB), and inconsistency between internal reasoning and self-explanations (IR-SE). Applying ICBENCH to a range of open-source LRMs, we find that while larger models generally exhibit greater consistency than smaller ones, they all display widespread "scheming" behaviors, including self-disagreement, post-hoc rationalization, and the withholding of reasoning cues. Crucially, our results demonstrate that efficient reasoning strategies such as No-Thinking and Simple Token-Budget consistently increase all three defined types of inconsistency. These findings suggest that although efficient reasoning enhances token-level efficiency, further investigation is imperative to ascertain whether it concurrently introduces the risk of models evading effective supervision.