Title: OptimalThinkingBench: Evaluating Over and Underthinking in LLMs
Primary area: foundation or frontier models, including LLMs
Keywords: reasoning llms, overthinking, underthinking, evaluation, benchmark

Abstract: Thinking LLMs solve complex tasks at the expense of increased compute and overthinking on simpler problems, while non-thinking LLMs are faster and cheaper but underthink on harder reasoning problems. This has led to the development of separate thinking and non-thinking LLM variants, leaving the onus of selecting the optimal model for each query on the end user. In this work, we introduce OptimalThinkingBench, a unified benchmark that jointly evaluates overthinking and underthinking in LLMs and also encourages the development of optimally-thinking models that balance performance and efficiency. Our benchmark comprises two sub-benchmarks: OverthinkingBench, featuring simple general queries in 72 domains along with simple math problems, and UnderthinkingBench, containing 11 challenging reasoning tasks along with tough math problems. Using novel thinking-adjusted accuracy metrics, we perform an extensive evaluation of 33 different thinking and non-thinking models and show that no model is able to optimally think on our benchmark. Thinking models often overthink for hundreds of tokens on the simplest user queries without improving performance. In contrast, large non-thinking models ``underthink'', often falling short of much smaller thinking models. We further explore several methods to encourage optimal thinking, but find that these approaches often improve on one sub-benchmark at the expense of the other, highlighting the need for better unified and optimal models in the future.

TL;DR: We propose OptimalThinkingBench, which jointly evaluates overthinking and underthinking in LLMs. We propose a unified metric to track progress and extensively evaluate existing models and efficiency methods, finding none achieve optimal thinking.