Taming the Thinker: Conditional Entropy Shaping for Adaptive LLM Reasoning
Quick Take
Conditional Entropy Shaping enhances LLM reasoning by balancing response length and accuracy.
Key Points
- Introduces a framework for dynamic token-level entropy control.
- Improves accuracy while reducing response length on benchmarks.
- Encourages exploration and error correction in reasoning.
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readAbstract:Entropy-based deep reasoning has emerged as a promising direction for improving the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), but existing methods often either increase response length indiscriminately or shorten responses at the cost of accuracy. To better balance this trade-off, we introduce Conditional Entropy Shaping (CES), a framework that dynamically controls token-level response entropy, enabling LLMs to produce concise solutions on simple problems while encouraging deeper exploration on hard ones. Built on DAPO, CES uses token-level entropy as an uncertainty signal and applies a conditional bidirectional policy: it penalizes high-entropy "forking point" tokens on correct reasoning paths to improve conciseness, and rewards them on incorrect paths to encourage exploration and error correction. We implement CES on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-7B and evaluate it on 12 mathematical benchmarks. CES consistently improves average accuracy while reducing response length relative to DAPO, and supplementary experiments show similar trends on a smaller 1.5B backbone and on out-of-domain benchmarks.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.19358 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2605.19358v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.19358 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Shuyu Wei [view email]
[v1]
Tue, 19 May 2026 04:41:51 UTC (249 KB)
— Originally published at arxiv.org
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.