LLM 추론 노력 제어: 낮음, 중간, 높음 모드 학습법

Controlling Reasoning Effort in LLMs How LLMs Learn Low-, Medium-, and High-Effort Reasoning Modes Sebastian Raschka, PhD Jul 18, 2026 243 11 19 Share It has been almost two years since OpenAI released o1, a model that popularized the idea of LLM-based reasoning models. DeepSeek-R1 followed about four months later, together with details of a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) recipe to train such reasoning models. Last week, OpenAI released the GPT-5.6 model family. It comes in three sizes, each with roughly five or six reasoning-effort settings. So yes, reasoning models are here to stay. They have become a standard part of modern model releases. In the past, I covered the methodology of reasoning models ( Understanding Reasoning LLMs ) as well as relevant research papers ( The State of Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning and The State of LLM Reasoning Model Inference ). And I even wrote a whole new 440-page book on how to develop reasoning models, Build A Reasoning Model (From Scratch) . These resources have focused on turning a conventional LLM into a reasoning model. Now, in this article, I want to focus on and explain how to develop a reasoning model that has multiple effort modes, similar to what’s shown in the figure at the beginning of this article. No worries, this article can be read as a standalone article. However, the aforementioned resources may be interesting and useful. 1. A brief definition of reasoning models When talking about pretty much any machine learning or AI technique or subfield, the one lesson is that we usually shouldn’t take technical terms “literally”. For example, an (artificial) neural network in machine learning and AI doesn’t literally work like a biological neural network like the human brain. Similarly, when talking about “reasoning models”, we shouldn’t expect that these models literally reason like us humans. In the context of AI and LLM research, “reasoning model” means a model that outputs an intermediate reasoning trace, which is like an intermediate response that works through a question or task step by step. It’s probably easiest to explain this by showing an example. 2. A brief overview of training and inference scaling reasoning models There are essentially two ways to improve (reasoning) task performance: training scaling and inference scaling. Let’s briefly talk about training first. 2.1 Training reasoning models In a nutshell, DeepSeek-R1 proposed training an LLM using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) to turn it into a reasoning model. RLVR is a technique to provide a reward signal ( 0=incorrect and 1=correct ) for verifiable data domains. These verifiable data domains here are math (we can use a symbolic math checker like SymPy or WolframAlpha to check results) and code (we can use a compiler or unit tests, or integrated platforms like LeetCode) to check for correctness. Notably, the reasoning trace itself was not used for training or updating the model. Although they tried to use this intermediate response information for training, the DeepSeek-R1 paper reported that it wasn’t helpful for the model training, so it was ultimately not used. (Whether and how to incorporate intermediate reasoning traces in the training signal via process reward models is an active area of research.) 2.2 “Aha” moments Anyway, just training on the output rewards alone, as Figure 7 shows, turned out to be sufficient for the model to learn how to reason through a problem, meaning that it would learn to write intermediate explanations, backtrack, and self-correct itself. These moments when the model realizes that it made a mistake and self-corrects itself are called “Aha” moments. By the way, while DeepSeek-R1 is inarguably the more popular paper, and the paper that created excitement around reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards and the development of reasoning models, there is another paper, Kimi K1.5 , published on exactly the same day on arXiv (22 Jan 2025). Also, the term RLVR was already coined two months earlier in Tülu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training . ​ One reason why the DeepSeek R1 is ultimately the more popular paper is that it demonstrated that reasoning behavior can be achieved with pure reinforcement learning (RL). For instance, Tülu 3 and Kimi K1.5 applied reinforcement learning on top of a supervised fine-tuned (SFT) model. The DeepSeek-R1 model was also trained from an SFT checkpoint of the DeepSeek-V3 base model, and it included a DeepSeek-R1-Zero variant trained with pure RLVR. R1 Zero is a weaker model than R1, but it showed that RLVR is sufficient for teaching the model to generate and use reasoning traces. ​While R1-Zero was more of a proof-of-concept model, note that the full DeepSeek-R1 reasoning model training pipeline is usually multi-stage and a bit more complicated, as mentioned above. ​ By the way, most of today’s LLMs are effectively reasoning models, meaning they have been trained in a similar fashion to DeepSeek-R1 using a form of RLVR. 2.3 Inference scaling in a nutshell Next to improving reasoning behavior through training, another lever for improving model performance is inference compute scaling. In short, this means that we are spending more compute after training the model, during usage, to get better answers. This is a whole topic by itself, and you could read through my The State of LLM Reasoning Model Inference for a more detailed rundown: The State of Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning Sebastian Raschka, PhD · April 19, 2025 Read full story I will try to summarize what’s most essential to mention as background info below. First, training a model with RLVR is already implicitly leading to a form of inference scaling, since reasoning models usually output more tokens during inference compared to conventional LLMs, and that means we are spending more compute during inference. Second, we can further adjust this output length via reasoning effort levels, but more on that later. ​Third, there are many additional inference scaling techniques. A popular one is self-consistency, which is often implemented as a form of majority voting where the model is queried multiple times, and the final answer is selected via majority vote. This can be applied to conventional LLMs as well as reasoning models. Also, this method can be used on demand and in addition to reasoning training. A good example of that is DeepSeekMath-V2, where the researchers applied extreme inference-scaling on top of a reasoning model (specialized for math) to achieve state-of-the-art performance on challenging math olympiad-type problems. But again, I will refer to my other article, The State of LLM Reasoning Model Inference for an overview of other techniques: The State of LLM Reasoning Model Inference Sebastian Raschka, PhD · March 8, 2025 Read full story 3. Think tokens You may have seen the <think></think> tokens in the earlier “Aha moments” figure. I also included the corresponding figure below so you don’t have to scroll all the way up. ​ These <think> and </think> tags are cosmetic with respect to reasoning ability. They do not make the model reason, and they are not required to achieve good reasoning performance. One could train the same model without these delimiters and likely reach similar benchmark performance. The purpose of these <think> tags or tokens is mainly to mark where the reasoning trace begins and ends so that the training pipeline or user interface can separate it from the final answer and optionally hide it from the user. (UIs like ChatGPT or Codex usually do this.) The point here is that the <think> tokens are not giving the model the ability to “think” or reason or reason better. One could train the same models without such <think> tokens and reach similar benchmark performance. There is also nothing special about the literal strings <think> and </think> . Another pair of delimiters could serve the same purpose. By th