Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

The Price of Thinking: Reasoning Effort as a Model-Specific API Contract

API buyers purchase a dated contract, not a model name alone: the contract includes the requested and served model, reasoning-effort term or its omission, output rail, service product, prompt, and price schedule. We study the reasoning-effort term through a registered paired contrast of Sonnet 5 with explicit high effort against the same model with effort omitted, using 30 AIME 2026 items and five calls per item. Every paid attempt was assigned one frozen terminal category, and inference resampled items while retaining their repeated calls. Mean delivered cost was \$0.01031 per call higher under the explicit-high contract than under the omitted contract [+\$0.00204, +\$0.01974]. The corresponding accuracy contrast was +0.0133 [-0.0267, +0.0467]; we did not detect an accuracy difference, and the interval permits a gain of up to 4.67 percentage points that this design cannot rule out. Cost per correct answer was \$0.08665 under the high-effort contract and \$0.07662 under the omitted contract, as registered point estimates. A dated contract census, Models-API metadata, and preregistered raw-response probes further documented model-specific omission semantics, including within a provider; claims remained at documentation grade when raw structure was indeterminate. The request registry, parser, terminal taxonomy, statistical plan, and analysis pipeline were frozen before outcomes were examined; the resulting claims are bounded to the model, task, and collection date studied.

ARES: Adaptive Reasoning-Effort Steering for PPA- and Cost-Aware RTL Optimization with LLM Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents optimize the power, performance, and area (PPA) of register-transfer-level (RTL) designs by iterating over edits, synthesis, and PPA analysis, paying a dollar cost for every LLM call. Prior agents report the quality reached without its normalized cost, attribute that quality to an engineered cross-design memory, and hold the reasoning effort of every call fixed. We propose Ares with three corresponding innovations. (1) We introduce a normalized dollar cost per LLM call reported alongside the figure of merit (FoM), enabling fair comparison across effort levels and optimizers. (2) Using this accounting, we find the construction of the long-term memory matters little. An engineered memory brings no dependable gain over a plain concatenation of the same experience. (3) We instead adapt the per-call reasoning effort by escalating to deeper reasoning only once progress at a lower effort stalls, via a patience counter fit on 21 training designs, allocating reasoning where it pays rather than uniformly across all iterations. On three test designs unseen during training, the effort policy lowers the FoM by 23-27% where the best fixed effort reaches 16-23%, at equal normalized cost. Ares closes up to 83% of the gap from an LLM-drafted multiply-accumulate unit to its highly hand-optimized counterpart, and reaches a 25% deeper FoM than state-of-the-art Dr. RTL at 12% of its tokens.

An Experimental Design Approach to Evaluating Agentic AI's Autonomous Model Discovery

Large language model coding agents increasingly perform open-ended data modeling and analysis. These agents are stochastic and adaptive, and therefore their autonomous model discovery behavior cannot be adequately characterized by a single benchmark run. In this work, we propose an experimental design and analysis framework for systematically evaluating this discovery process, quantifying its variability, and identifying important factors. The proposed framework treats these agents as stochastic model-discovery operators, which map task-specific discovery data and an optimization target to a fitted model. Specifically, we investigate two such operators, Codex and Claude Code, under controlled experimental factors including agent's reasoning effort, task, optimization metric, and composition of training data. For each agent-task-metric combination, regression models and inference are conducted for multiple responses such as output quality, dollar cost, wall-clock time, and process complexity. Furthermore, we develop a utility-aligned canonical decomposition to characterize the dominant direction of the reasoning-effort effect and to assess whether that direction aligns with a performance-cost utility direction. The proposed framework is demonstrated on a testbed of networked word-forming games with insightful findings on reasoning effort with respect to cost and process complexity.

Reasoning effort, not tool access, buys first-try reliability in agentic code generation: an observational study

Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs built the same application, a real time retrospective board, from one detailed specification, each scored on a fixed 14 criterion functional rubric (42 point maximum) and a visual quality review. The runs spanned several model generations, two agent harnesses, two reasoning effort levels, a testing tool, and two design oriented prompts. Capability tier dominated: frontier models clustered near the ceiling while a low cost local model fell to 24 to 37 points. A criterion level analysis revealed what run totals conceal. Container deployment was the dominant defect, failing first try in 44 percent of runs, with its failure rate shifting sharply across model generations while mean totals moved less than a point. The testing tool raised cost by 42 to 68 percent without improving functional score or reliability, even on interface visible criteria. Raising reasoning effort from High to xHigh lifted first try perfect runs from 28 percent to 89 percent and cut corrective prompts about five fold, for 9 to 29 percent more cost. A design oriented prompt raised visual quality, 4.5 versus 3.0 on a 5 point scale, without lifting function, and a one paragraph paraphrase of its directive reproduced the entire lift. The practical lesson is to match the fix to the failure: most first run failures came from weak reasoning, which a stronger model or more effort prevents, not from visible flaws a checking tool would catch.