Your Model Diversity, Not Method, Determines Reasoning Strategy

Compute scaling for LLM reasoning requires allocating budget between exploring solution approaches ($breadth$) and refining promising solutions ($depth$). Most methods implicitly trade off one for the other, yet why a given trade-off works remains unclear, and validation on a single model obscures the role of the model itself. We argue that $\textbf{the optimal strategy depends on the model's diversity profile, the spread of probability mass across solution approaches, and that this must be characterized before any exploration strategy is adopted.}$ We formalize this through a theoretical framework decomposing reasoning uncertainty and derive conditions under which tree-style depth refinement outperforms parallel sampling. We validate it on Qwen-3 4B and Olmo-3 7B families, showing that lightweight signals suffice for depth-based refinement on low-diversity aligned models while yielding limited utility for high-diversity base models, which we hypothesize require stronger compensation for lower exploration coverage.

Optimizing Reasoning Efficiency through Prompt Difficulty Prediction

Reasoning language models perform well on complex tasks but are costly to deploy due to their size and long reasoning traces. We propose a routing approach that assigns each problem to the smallest model likely to solve it, reducing compute without sacrificing accuracy. Using intermediate representations from s1.1-32B, we train lightweight predictors of problem difficulty or model correctness to guide routing across a pool of reasoning models. On diverse math benchmarks, routing improves efficiency over random assignment and matches s1.1-32B's performance while using significantly less compute. Our results demonstrate that difficulty-aware routing is effective for cost-efficient deployment of reasoning models.