Broken Chains: The Cost of Incomplete Reasoning in LLMs

TL;DR

This paper investigates how different reasoning modalities and token budget constraints affect the performance of large language models on mathematical benchmarks, revealing that incomplete reasoning can actively mislead models and that robustness varies across models.

Contribution

The study introduces a framework to systematically analyze the impact of reasoning modality and token constraints on model performance, highlighting the importance of complete reasoning chains.

Findings

Truncated reasoning can significantly reduce accuracy.

Code reasoning degrades gracefully under token constraints.

Hybrid reasoning modalities underperform compared to single modalities.

Abstract

Reasoning-specialized models like OpenAI's 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2 allocate substantial inference compute to extended chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, yet reasoning tokens incur significant costs. How do different reasoning modalities of code, natural language, hybrid, or none do perform under token constraints? We introduce a framework that constrains models to reason exclusively through code, comments, both, or neither, then systematically ablates token budgets to 10\%, 30\%, 50\%, and 70\% of optimal. We evaluate four frontier models (GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Flash, DeepSeek-V3.2, Grok 4.1) across mathematical benchmarks (AIME, GSM8K, HMMT). Our findings reveal: (1) \textbf{truncated reasoning can hurt} as DeepSeek-V3.2 achieves 53\% with no reasoning but only 17\% with truncated CoT at 50\% budget; (2) \textbf{code degrades gracefully} as Gemini's comments collapse to 0\% while code maintains 43-47\%; (3) \textbf{hybrid reasoning underperforms} single modalities; (4) \textbf{robustness is model-dependent} as Grok maintains 80-90\% at 30\% budget where OpenAI and DeepSeek collapse to 7-27\%. These results suggest incomplete reasoning chains actively mislead models, with implications for deploying reasoning-specialized systems under resource constraints.