SyncThink: A Training-Free Strategy to Align Inference Termination with Reasoning Saturation

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting improves reasoning but often produces long and redundant traces that substantially increase inference cost. We present SyncThink, a training-free and plug-and-play decoding method that reduces CoT overhead without modifying model weights. We find that answer tokens attend weakly to early reasoning and instead focus on the special token "/think", indicating an information bottleneck. Building on this observation, SyncThink monitors the model's own reasoning-transition signal and terminates reasoning. Experiments on GSM8K, MMLU, GPQA, and BBH across three DeepSeek-R1 distilled models show that SyncThink achieves 62.00 percent average Top-1 accuracy using 656 generated tokens and 28.68 s latency, compared to 61.22 percent, 2141 tokens, and 92.01 s for full CoT decoding. On long-horizon tasks such as GPQA, SyncThink can further yield up to +8.1 absolute accuracy by preventing over-thinking.

Safety-Utility Conflicts Are Not Global: Surgical Alignment via Head-Level Diagnosis

Safety alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) inherently presents a multi-objective optimization conflict, often accompanied by an unintended degradation of general capabilities. Existing mitigation strategies typically rely on global gradient geometry to resolve these conflicts, yet they overlook Modular Heterogeneity within Transformers, specifically that the functional sensitivity and degree of conflict vary substantially across different attention heads. Such global approaches impose uniform update rules across all parameters, often resulting in suboptimal trade-offs by indiscriminately updating utility sensitive heads that exhibit intense gradient conflicts. To address this limitation, we propose Conflict-Aware Sparse Tuning (CAST), a framework that integrates head-level diagnosis with sparse fine-tuning. CAST first constructs a pre-alignment conflict map by synthesizing Optimization Conflict and Functional Sensitivity, which then guides the selective update of parameters. Experiments reveal that alignment conflicts in LLMs are not uniformly distributed. We find that the drop in general capabilities mainly comes from updating a small group of ``high-conflict'' heads. By simply skipping these heads during training, we significantly reduce this loss without compromising safety, offering an interpretable and parameter-efficient approach to improving the safety-utility trade-off.