Think Less, Locally: Local Preference Learning for Reasoning Compression
Abstract
LoCo uses local preference learning to teach reasoning models when to stop deliberating, reducing output length substantially while preserving or improving accuracy across math and code tasks.
Large reasoning models achieve strong performance on challenging tasks, but their long chain-of-thought often incurs substantial inference costs by continuing to deliberate after sufficient information has been obtained. Existing reasoning compression methods primarily operate on reasoning trajectories, paying less attention to the local decision of whether further reasoning is necessary given the current state. We propose LoCo, a local preference learning method for reasoning compression. LoCo detects candidate overthinking states from the model's own traces, freezes the corresponding reasoning prefixes, regenerates shorter verified continuations from the same states, and trains on the resulting state-conditioned preference pairs with DPO. This formulation teaches the model when to continue reasoning and when to conclude, rather than simply encouraging shorter trajectories overall. We construct training data entirely from self-generated mathematical traces and evaluate LoCo on five mathematical and three code generation benchmarks. LoCo reduces completion length by 41.7\%--45.4\% on mathematics and 23.4\%--36.3\% on code, while maintaining or improving accuracy and achieving the best AUC across all code benchmarks. LoCo consistently improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off on mathematics and transfers effectively to code generation despite math-only training, demonstrating the cross-domain generality of local preference learning for reasoning compression. The code and model will be publicly released at https://github.com/MuyaoYuan/LoCo.
Community
The preference pairs come only from math traces, and the gain also shows up in code. Did you test whether the model starts stopping too early on tasks where the extra step is verification, like checking a test before answering? On modest hardware, cutting 40% of the tokens changes response time a lot, so I would like to know where this breaks.
Thanks for your interests in this work!
Early stop mainly reduces redundant verification. But it is not to simply cut all verification; the preference pair is constructed in a way such that only when the reasoning reaches a confident state, the model then considers wrapping up the reasoning. The objective of our approach is to learn such "adaptive" behavior.
Back to your question, yes I believe most of the token cutting results from reducing extra verification. But not all verification is simply cut out; the model still preserves necessary verification to maintain the reasoning capability.
The motivation behind such local and adaptive reasoning steering comes upon our prior work, where we find that LLM reasoning is a local transition process rather than planning a global roadmap. Check out our paper if you are interested 😊
[ICML 2026] How Far Ahead Do LLMs Plan? Uncovering the Latent Horizon in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Thanks for the answer. That clarifies that the model keeps the verification it needs and drops only the redundant part. I would still like to see it measured on tasks where the verification step decides the answer.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.04814 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 1
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper