# Thinking Inertia: LLMs Keep Thinking When Told Not To

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11765 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11765/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 32 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.10957/) (2020)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03533/) (2022)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07597/) (2023)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [L1: Controlling How Long A Reasoning Model Thinks With Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04697/) (2025)
- [Chain of Draft: Thinking Faster by Writing Less](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18600/) (2025)
- [Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18547/) (2024)
- [When More is Less: Understanding Chain-of-Thought Length in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07266/) (2025)
- [AdaptThink: Reasoning Models Can Learn When to Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13417/) (2025)
- [C3oT: Generating Shorter Chain-of-Thought without Compromising Effectiveness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11664/) (2024)
- [Thinkless: LLM Learns When to Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13379/) (2025)
- [Self-Training Elicits Concise Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20122/) (2025)
- [Think Only When You Need with Large Hybrid-Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14631/) (2025)
- [Learning When to Think: Shaping Adaptive Reasoning in R1-Style Models via Multi-Stage RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10832/) (2025)
- [Prompt Repetition Improves Non-Reasoning LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.14982/) (2025)
- [Exploring the System 1 Thinking Capability of Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10368/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly ship with explicit "thinking modes", yet their counterpart, "no-thinking", has received far less attention. We study LLMs' no-thinking behavior along two axes. a. How to measure no-thinking? Prior work typically defines no-thinking through proxies such as a disabled thinking mode or the absence of long traces. These proxies are unreliable: disabled thinking modes may still emit reasoning, while long traces may contain filler rather than genuine inference. We instead normalize each response into a pre-answer trace and final answer, and evaluate it at three levels: (i) Empty-Thinking Rate for strict answer-only compliance; (ii) instruction-aware Question-Pre-answer Relevance for similarity between the question and pre-answer trace; and (iii) LLM-as-judge Explicit Inference Rate for visible explicit inference. Together, these metrics distinguish answer-only output, relevant but non-inferential text, and explicit inference. b. How does no-thinking vary across tasks and models? We evaluate six prompting interventions on six LLMs across Boolean, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. We find that explicit no-think controls cannot reliably eliminate visible inference. Models instead exhibit "Thinking Inertia": explicit inference persists even under strict controls and becomes more prevalent as the answer space opens. Accuracy remains stable on Boolean and multiple-choice tasks, whereas open-ended tasks reveal a trade-off between answer-only compliance and task accuracy. Rewriting the same questions across answer spaces shows that supplying candidate answers makes answer-only responses easier to produce. These findings establish no-thinking as a non-trivial capability: stopping explicit reasoning cannot be assumed from model settings or instructions alone and deserves systematic evaluation alongside reasoning ability.