Papers
arxiv:2510.08308

First Try Matters: Revisiting the Role of Reflection in Reasoning Models

Published on Oct 9
· Submitted by Liwei Kang on Oct 10
Authors:
,

Abstract

Analysis of reflective behaviors in reasoning models shows that reflections primarily confirm initial answers, and training with more reflections improves first-answer correctness; a question-aware early-stopping method reduces unnecessary reflections and tokens with minimal accuracy loss.

AI-generated summary

Large language models have recently demonstrated significant gains in reasoning ability, often attributed to their capacity to generate longer chains of thought and engage in reflective reasoning. However, the contribution of reflections to performance improvement remains unclear. In this paper, we systematically analyze the rollouts of eight reasoning models on five mathematical datasets. We focus on reflective behaviours where the model has already produced an answer but continues reflecting before finalizing its output. Our analysis reveals that reflections are predominantly confirmatory and rarely alter the model's initial answer, a pattern consistent across models and datasets. To understand the role of reflections in training, we construct supervised fine-tuning (SFT) datasets with varying amounts of reflection steps. We observe that training models on rollouts with more reflection steps primarily enhances first-answer correctness rather than the ability to correct initially wrong answers through reflections. This motivates us to propose a question-aware early-stopping method that enhances inference-time token efficiency by stopping the reasoning process once a few plausible candidate answers are generated, thereby reducing unnecessary reflection steps. Motivated by this, we further propose to dynamically truncate the reflections after a candidate answer has appeared during generation, which reduces reasoning tokens by 24.5% across five mathematical datasets, within a 2.9% drop in accuracy.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

In this paper, we present detailed studies of reflection patterns of reasoning models on mathematical datasets.

We show that reflections of reasoning models are mostly confirmatory and usually will not change the previous candidate answer. However, training on rollouts with more reflections still leads to better generalization, higher accuracy on test sets. But the performance gain mainly comes from the improvement in first-answer accuracy, while reflections hardly flip an incorrect answer to correct, despite being trained with extensive reflection patterns.

We hope our findings deepen understanding of how reasoning models are trained and help guide the development of more efficient models.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2510.08308 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2510.08308 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2510.08308 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 1