Researchers posted three AI papers to arXiv in November 2026 reporting a way to curb overthinking in reasoning models, a perception system for ARC-AGI-3 agents and a biology benchmark for vision-language models.
Each paper reports measurements that bear on cost or evaluation: how many tokens reasoning models spend, what an agent needs to perceive to do well on ARC-AGI-3, and where vision-language models fall short on biological images. All results are the authors' own, and the abstract pages do not report independent replication.
The Routes of Reasoning paper1 starts from the problem that reasoning models "overthink," continuing to verify long after finding a correct answer, which the authors say wastes compute and can degrade performance. They propose editing expert router scores in Mixture-of-Experts models during inference, a training-free change. Across four models and four benchmarks, the authors report a median 30.4% reduction in generated tokens, up to 63.3%, with accuracy never dropping more than 0.5 percentage points. The abstract does not name the four models or benchmarks. The paper is an unreviewed preprint.
The SARBLOH paper2 argues that spatial perception, not planning, governs performance on ARC-AGI-3, which scores agents on Relative Human Action Efficiency. SARBLOH is an open-weight agent that converts each game frame into an object inventory and a geometric briefing. In an internal comparison across eight presentations, the authors report that adding grounded perception raised a rubric score from 3/28 to 25/28 and cut token use by 89.4%. That 25/28 is a rubric score within the paper's own ablation, not an ARC-AGI-3 benchmark score.
On the public set, the authors report that Run A, with the briefing off, solved 143 of 183 levels in 8.2 hours at 59.4% single-pass efficiency, while Run B, with it on, reached 63.5%. They report a score of 16.53 on the hidden Kaggle evaluation, 13.7 times the first Milestone winner's. The paper was submitted to the ARC Prize 2026 paper track and has not been peer reviewed.
The Bio-VQA paper4 introduces the authors' own benchmark of 1.86 million questions over 217,000 images from 11 public datasets. The authors say existing benchmarks focus mostly on species identification within a few taxonomic groups. They evaluated 18 open-weight models of 3.75 billion to 38.4 billion parameters. The best model counted animals exactly on 41.7% of images with 2 to 10 individuals, less than half its accuracy on everyday objects at the same counts.
Taxonomic accuracy fell from 0.72 at phylum to 0.12 at scientific name. At scientific name, the best score of 0.269 compared with 0.544 for the specialist model BioCLIP-2. The results cover open-weight models only. Bio-VQA is listed as accepted to WACV 2027.