When More is Less: Understanding Chain-of-Thought Length in LLMs

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by breaking complex tasks into smaller, manageable sub-tasks. Researchers have been exploring ways to guide models to generate more complex CoT processes to improve the reasoning ability of LLMs, such as long CoT and the test-time scaling law. However, for most models and tasks, does an increase in CoT length consistently lead to improved reasoning accuracy? In this paper, we observe a nuanced relationship: as the number of reasoning steps increases, performance initially improves but eventually decreases. To understand this phenomenon, we provide a piece of evidence that longer reasoning processes are increasingly susceptible to noise. We theoretically prove the existence of an optimal CoT length and derive a scaling law for this optimal length based on model capability and task difficulty. Inspired by our theory, we conduct experiments on both synthetic and real world datasets and propose Length-filtered Vote to alleviate the effects of excessively long or short CoTs. Our findings highlight the critical need to calibrate CoT length to align with model capabilities and task demands, offering a principled framework for optimizing multi-step reasoning in LLMs.