测试大模型在基础数学题上的过拟合现象，发现越想越错。

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning while generating unnecessarily verbose responses. In this paper, we present LLMThinkBench, a systematic benchmark and comprehensive empirical study to evaluate the efficiency of reasoning in LLMs, focusing on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking. First, we formalize the accuracy-verbosity tradeoff. Second, we introduce the Overthinking Score, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation. Third, we establish an evaluation protocol with dynamically-generated data across 14 basic math tasks. Fourth, we conduct a large-scale empirical study evaluating 53 LLMs, including reasoning and quantized variants across different reasoning budgets. Fifth, we release LLMThinkBench as an open-source Python package and public leaderboard for reproducibility. Our findings reveal: 1) model performance on complex benchmarks does not translate directly to basic math reasoning; 2) reasoning models generate ~18x more tokens while sometimes achieving lower accuracy and exhibit catastrophic collapse when tokens are constrained, dropping by up to ~36%; 3) the accuracy-verbosity relationship is non-monotonic with extended reasoning budgets yielding diminishing returns (GPT-5/o-series models show zero accuracy gain from low -> medium -> high reasoning effort). Our findings challenge the assumption that longer reasoning in LLMs necessarily improves mathematical reasoning. Our public leaderboard is available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/LLMThinkBench/. Our open-source Python package is available at https://pypi.org/project/llmthinkbench/, and the codebase can be found at https://github.com/ctrl-gaurav/LLMThinkBench for easy and reproducible evaluation.