Organizations: National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, China · Department of Linguistics and Translation, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China · School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Liaoning, China
Current large reasoning models (LRMs) have shown strong ability on challenging tasks after reinforcement learning (RL) based post-training. However, previous work mainly focuses on English reasoning in expectation of the strongest performance, despite the demonstrated potential advantage of multilingual thinking, as well as the requirement for native thinking traces by global users. In this paper, we propose ExpLang, a novel LLM post-training pipeline that enables on-policy thinking language selection to improve exploration and exploitation during RL with the use of multiple languages. The results show that our method steadily outperforms English-only training with the same training budget, while showing high thinking language compliance for both seen and unseen languages. Analysis shows that, by enabling on-policy thinking language selection as an action during RL, ExpLang effectively extends the RL exploration space with diversified language preference and improves the RL exploitation outcome with leveraged non-English advantage. The method is orthogonal to most RL algorithms and opens up a new perspective on using multilinguality to improve LRMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our work. a. Multilingual thinking shows larger diversity and higher Pass@ k , suggesting better exploration space; b. The ExpLang pipeline with on-policy thinking language selection to leverage the advantage.
Size
Setting
Acc(%) ↑
Pass@k(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
4B
en
79.4
91.6
2900.7
100.0
multi
75.7
93.4
2339.7
73.3
8B
en
77.8
90.6
3007.8
100.0
multi
75.0
93.4
2505.7
72.7
32B
en
80.2
93.0
2796.3
100.0
Table 1: Performances of Qwen3 models across test sets under en and multi settings. “Compl.” denotes thinking language compliance.
Model
Acc(%) ↑
Pass@k(%) ↑
Tokens ↓
MATH-500
Qwen3-4B
78.1
90.0
2953.2
SFT (Ctrl)
78.6 (+0.5)
93.4
2764.1
SFT (Ours)
72.0 (-6.1)
92.6
2590.9
RLVR (Naive)
91.4 (+13.3)
96.6
1416.9
RLVR (Ctrl)
91.0 (+12.4)
96.6
1440.0
Table 2: Performance comparison between models, with automatic (default) thinking language selection across test sets. “Ctrl” stands for the controlled baseline, while “Naive” stands for the naive baseline and “Ours” stands for ExpLang. Parentheses denote performance change during the last training stage.
Model
AccF↑
Acc∗↑
Tokens ↓
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
Qwen3-4B
73.8
54.2
2339.7
73.3
SFT (Ctrl)
70.5 (-3.3)
57.3 (+3.1)
2298.4
80.9
SFT (Ours)
69.0 (-4.8)
68.6 (+14.4)
2298.1
99.3
RLVR (Naive)
87.2 (+13.4)
57.8 (+3.7)
1321.3
66.2
RLVR (Ctrl)
85.5 (+15.0)
67.6 (+10.3)
1317.8
78.8
Table 3: Results on seen languages: performance, tokens, and compliance with forced language selection. AccF means accuracy filtered on compliant samples only, and Acc∗ means accuracy with incompliance counted as error. Other notations are consistent with previous tables.
Model
AccF↑
Acc∗↑
Tokens ↓
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
Qwen3-4B
80.4
54.2
2201.5
34.0
SFT (Ctrl)
70.0 (-10.4)
32.8 (-21.4)
2147.6
46.4
SFT (Ours)
64.5 (-15.9)
41.7 (-12.5)
2233.7
62.8
RLVR (Naive)
83.5 (+3.1)
24.6 (-29.6)
1208.1
28.6
RLVR (Ctrl)
81.1 (+11.1)
37.9 (+5.2)
1258.9
46.6
Table 4: Results on unseen languages: performance, tokens, and compliance with forced language selection. The notations are consistent with previous tables.
Figure 2: Trends of thinking language selection rates of our model at the end of different training stages, across the three test sets.
Model
Auto ↑ Acc
Forced AccF↑
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
Qwen3-4B
78.1
73.8
73.3
LoRA
72.0
69.0
99.3
Fully
66.9
68.7
99.5
AIME-2025
Qwen3-4B
18.9
14.2
71.9
Table 5: Accuracy and language compliance of the original, LoRA-tuned and fully-tuned models. “Auto Acc” stands for the average accuracy with automatic thinking language selection, while “Forced AccF ” stands for the average accuracy filtered by compliance with forced thinking language selection of seen non-English languages.
RL Model
Auto Acc ↑
Forced AccF↑
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
w/ explore
91.5
85.7
99.9
w/o explore
91.0
85.0
99.7
AIME-2025
w/ explore
31.9
27.3
99.7
w/o explore
28.9
23.9
100.0
Table 6: Accuracy and language compliance of training with or without the multilingual exploration stage. The notations are consistent with previous tables.
RL Model
Auto Acc ↑
Forced AccF↑
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
w/ multi. exploit
91.5
85.7
99.9
w/ naive exploit
91.7
85.3
99.7
w/o exploit
88.0
87.5
99.9
AIME-2025
w/ multi. exploit
31.9
27.3
99.7
Table 7: Accuracy and language compliance of training with multilingual exploitation, naive GRPO exploration, and without exploration. The notations are consistent with previous tables.
Stage-Wise KL Use
Auto Acc ↑
Forced AccF↑
Compl. ↑
MATH-500
(N, Y)
91.5
85.7
99.9
(N, N)
90.8
85.4
99.7
(Y, Y)
91.1
84.3
99.8
AIME-2025
(N, Y)
31.9
27.3
99.7
Table 8: Accuracy and language compliance of training with different KL loss settings during the exploration and exploitation stages, respectively. The notations are consistent with previous tables.
Figure 3: Policy entropy of ExpLang and the controlled baseline during the RLVR process.
Figure 4: Win-Tie-Lose rate of non-English vs. English thinking, in terms of the average accuracy of the models on 2000 training samples, run for 5 times per sample.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Comparison of Cluster Counts After Spectral Clustering of English and Multilingual Thinking.
Figure 6: Prefixes and accept rates used in multilingual thinking data generation and forced multilingual thinking for baseline models.
As LLMs reduce English-centric bias, a surprising trend emerges: non-English responses sometimes outperform English on reasoning tasks. We hypothesize that language functions as a latent variable that structurally modulates the model's internal inference pathways, rather than merely serving as an output medium. To test this, we conducted a Polyglot Thinking Experiment, in which models were prompted to solve identical problems under language-constrained and language-unconstrained conditions. Results show that non-English responses often achieve higher accuracy, and the best performance frequently occur when language is unconstrained, suggesting that multilinguality broadens the model's latent reasoning space. Based on this insight, we propose polyGRPO (Polyglot Group Relative Policy Optimization), an RL framework that treats language variation as an implicit exploration signal. It generates polyglot preference data online under language-constrained and unconstrained conditions, optimizing the policy with respect to both answer accuracy and reasoning structure. Trained on only 18.1K multilingual math problems without chain-of-thought annotations, polyGRPO improves the base model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) by 6.72% absolute accuracy on four English reasoning testset and 6.89% in their multilingual benchmark. Remarkably, it is the only method that surpasses the base LLM on English commonsense reasoning task (4.9%), despite being trained solely on math data-highlighting its strong cross-task generalization. Further analysis reveals that treating language as a latent variable expands the model's latent reasoning space, yielding consistent and generalizable improvements in reasoning performance.
Despite advances in multilingual capabilities, most large language models (LLMs) remain English-centric in their training and, crucially, in the reasoning traces they produce: even for non-English problems, they predominantly reason in English, leaving non-English users with intermediate reasoning they cannot follow. We address this disparity with two contributions. (a) We introduce ReasonXL, the first large-scale parallel corpus of cross-domain reasoning traces in five European languages (English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish): over 2.5M aligned samples (11B tokens) per language, each comprising prompt, reasoning trace, and final output, enabling direct supervision of language-specific reasoning. (b) Using ReasonXL, we demonstrate that LLMs can be adapted to reason entirely in a target language through a simple two-stage pipeline of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), matching or exceeding the base models' English-reasoning performance in two of four languages and recovering most of it in the remaining two.
Daniil Gurgurov, Tom Röhr, Sebastian von Rohrscheidt +3
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarland University · Berliner Hochschule für Technik
Exploration is a cornerstone of learning from experience: it enables agents to find solutions to complex problems, generalize to novel ones, and scale performance with test-time compute. In this paper, we present a framework for post-training language models (LMs) that explicitly encourages optimistic exploration and promotes a synergy between exploration and exploitation. The central idea is to train the LM to generate sets of responses that are collectively accurate under the reward function and exploratory in their reasoning strategies. We first develop a general recipe for optimizing LMs with set reinforcement learning (set RL) under arbitrary objective functions, showing how standard RL algorithms can be adapted to this setting through a modification to the advantage computation. We then propose Polychromic Exploratory Policy Optimization (Poly-EPO), which instantiates this framework with an objective that explicitly synergizes exploration and exploitation. Across a range of reasoning benchmarks, we show that Poly-EPO improves generalization, as evidenced by higher pass@k coverage, preserves greater diversity in model generations, and effectively scales with test-time compute.
Ifdita Hasan Orney, Jubayer Ibn Hamid, Shreya S Ramanujam +5