Large Language Model Reasoning

Large language models increasingly tackle hard reasoning problems by spending more test-time compute, yet the dominant strategy remains naive repeated sampling: draw many independent solutions and hope one is correct. Because such sampling explores only through local decoding noise, it tends to produce many near duplicate attempts rather than genuinely different ideas. We ask whether exploration can instead be steered at a semantic level, by first sampling problem specific concepts, hints, or strategies and then conditioning answer generation on them. We refine this into a simple, more exploratory procedure that emits many diverse concepts in a single trajectory, and evaluate it on hard problems where repeated sampling struggles. We then go a step further and make concept generation trainable: a small concept generator is optimized with reinforcement learning so that its concepts maximize the downstream success of a larger, frozen answer generator. On hard mathematical reasoning problems, the trained concept generator substantially improves the answer generator's pass@k over naive repeated sampling at the same answer generation allocation, surpasses concepts drawn from much larger untuned models, and transfers to answer generators it was never trained against, including a model from a different family. A small model can thus be trained into an effective, reusable search policy for a much larger one.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at reasoning when scaled to hundreds of billions of parameters, but small- and mid-scale models remain brittle reasoners even with knowledge distillation (KD). We present Ladders-of-Thought (LoT), a framework that improves reasoning by combining progressive question rewrites with a self-evolving curriculum. LoT automatically generates semantically faithful but easier variants of reasoning problems, organizes them into difficulty buckets using step-based measures, and employs a self-evolving bandit scheduler to allocate training adaptively. Evaluated on two reasoning domains, math and multi-hop reasoning, across 1-8B models from different families, LoT consistently improves over KD. It delivers large gains on arithmetic tasks (e.g., +32 percentage points on AddSub, +25pp on SVAMP), +2-8pp improvements on in-domain test splits, and strong though dataset-dependent benefits on multi-hop reasoning (e.g., +16pp on QASC, +25pp on StrategyQA). LoT also converges faster than staged curricula, highlighting the value of adaptive progression. These results show that progressive rewrites coupled with adaptive curricula provide a simple yet effective recipe for strengthening reasoning in smaller LLMs.

Characterizing LLM reasoning remains an open challenge, as many existing benchmarks isolate specific reasoning skills, rely on external knowledge, or are costly to extend. We introduce PetriBench, a compact, fully self-contained, and scalable benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning over dynamic state spaces using Petri nets, a mature formalism for modeling real-world concurrent and distributed systems. PetriBench organizes reasoning into four task families varying by scope and temporal horizon, with Easy, Medium, and Hard levels generated by increasing structural complexity and evaluated against exact ground truth. Across a diverse set of proprietary and open-weight models, accuracy decreases consistently with difficulty, while harder instances expose increasingly distinct task-specific capability profiles. Additional analyses show that test-time compute improves performance but interacts differently with different reasoning tasks, and that procedural generation yields smooth scaling with structural complexity. Together, these results show that PetriBench provides a unified and extensible setting for probing the strengths, limits, and scaling behavior of LLM reasoning.

Speech language models enable richer spoken interactions between humans and machines than cascaded systems, allowing access to paralinguistic information and lower latency. However, their accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks has lagged behind those of text models. Reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards has been instrumental in extending text models' capabilities for solving complex problems and limiting hallucinations. In this work, we explore applying RL to the GLM-4-Voice speech model (Zeng et al., 2024) to bridge the gap between textual and spoken mathematical problem solving. We first adapt the model to the domain using supervised fine-tuning on synthesized spoken question-answering data. We then show that, even without extra reasoning tokens, RL improves the accuracy on GSM8K beyond levels previously achieved for speech models only with supplementary reasoning traces. When combined with existing streaming reasoning techniques, we show further gains to 74.8% free-form accuracy. This establishes a new state-of-the-art for mathematical spoken abilities with speech-native models.

Large language models (LLMs) often suffer from capability stagnation in self-improvement training because fixed difficulty levels fail to adapt to their evolving proficiency. To address this issue, we propose STRETCH (Self-Taught Reasoning Evolution via Targeted CHallenge), a unified framework inspired by cognitive scaffolding theory. STRETCH introduces a dynamic Stretch Zone mechanism that continuously aligns question difficulty with the model's solving capability. Within a single parameter space, the model alternates between a Scaffolder that generates adaptive, boundary-pushing challenges and a Learner that that optimizes its solving trajectories through reinforcement learning. This dual-loop co-evolution effectively stabilizes training, mitigates reward hacking and promote progressive reasoning growth. Experiments on both negotiation and operation research benchmarks demonstrate that STRETCH consistently outperforms strong prompting and domain-specific baselines. Further scaffolder configuration analysis shows that dynamic difficulty alignment is critical for sustained capability improvement and synchronized reasoning evolution.

Large language models solve grade-school math word problems with high accuracy, yet a single irrelevant clause inserted into the problem can collapse it. We reconcile these observations with a mechanistic account. We show that the model's internal computation decomposes into a four-stage sequential pipeline, Schema Abstraction, Operation Planning, Operand Binding, and Computation, each stage producing a distinct intermediate representation in an identifiable band of layers. Using the same scaffold to diagnose distractor-induced failure, we localize the corruption to a single stage, Operation Planning, implemented by a set of attention heads whose causal role we validate bidirectionally. In short, we provide a mechanistic interpretation of math word problem reasoning in LLMs, and their failure when distracted.

LLM assistants are widely used for daily social advice, yet evaluating their social reasoning in such consultation settings remains challenging since (i) it requires setups where the assistant learns about social situations from subjective user narratives, and (ii) social properties, such as others' intentions, typically lack verifiable ground truth. To address these challenges, we introduce Fuse, a multi-agent simulation framework for studying user-mediated social reasoning. In Fuse, a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who then consults the evaluated assistant to infer the target's motive, providing verifiable ground truth by construction. Simulation faithfulness is validated through a human study with 24k annotations. We apply Fuse to 12 LLMs and demonstrate its analytical utility by systematically isolating key factors, showing that (i) user mediation compounds the inherent difficulty of social reasoning; (ii) LLMs exhibit systematic sensitivity to biased user framing; (iii) models can require more details than humans need to reach a correct prediction; and (iv) longer conversations do not always improve performance despite providing opportunities for clarifying questions. We open-source Fuse and a dataset with 21k examples.

Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM personas simulate public opinion at scale. Current evaluations test only whether personas hold the right opinions -- a static snapshot. But opinion research increasingly depends on dynamic fidelity: whether personas update beliefs in response to new arguments, as humans do during deliberation. No existing benchmark tests this. We introduce the Deliberative Polling Diagnostic Framework, which compares human and LLM belief shifts after identical informational interventions. Grounded in deliberative polling, it surfaces failures invisible to static evaluation: models that produce plausible partisan opinions can still misrepresent how those opinions change. Applying the framework to five frontier models using data from America in One Room (526 personas, 72 questions), we find that every model fails, each in a unique manner. GPT-5.1 exhibits reversal: its personas become more hostile toward the opposing party after balanced information, while humans become less so. This reversal is selective (80% on outgroup vs. 26% on policy questions) and symmetric across partisan identities. Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Llama 3.3 70B exhibit overshoot, shifting correctly but at 5-7x human magnitude. DeepSeek V3 exhibits rigidity with near-zero change. Targeted ablations reveal that policy content triggers these failures and that they are identity-specific: GPT-5.1 reverses on outgroup questions but overshoots on ingroup; Gemini shows the inverse. We term this signature self-sycophancy: conformity to the model's internal stereotype of the persona rather than reasoning from the information provided. Our framework offers a concrete protocol: run the deliberative diagnostic before trusting LLM personas to mimic revised beliefs.

The reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is a critical factor for practical LLM-based applications. To investigate the current reasoning capability of LLMs, we clarify the types of errors that arise in LLMs' reasoning processes on mathematical datasets. We focus on problems where LLMs produce an incorrect answer. We define errors in the reasoning process as reasoning errors and manually analyze the features of reasoning errors. We defined and classified 21 error classes and identified the frequently occurring classes among them. Beyond qualitative evaluation, we leverage the evaluation results to improve the reasoning capability. We designed a prompt that explicitly focuses on eight error classes. The experiments demonstrate that this prompt effectively improves reasoning performance. Furthermore, the results suggest that the frequent reasoning errors identified in this paper are common across LLMs of comparable scale.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate biomedical hypotheses, but it remains unclear whether they truly reason from scientific evidence or simply produce convincing-sounding ideas. To study this, we combine three major biological databases: the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), Rhea, and UniProt, into a unified biochemical knowledge graph and construct a benchmark of 550 paths connecting enzyme sources to rare disease endpoints, yielding 13,200 hypotheses from six LLMs under four conditions varying the biological information each model receives: source enzyme only, full biological path, or source and disease endpoint only. Hypotheses are scored using an expert-derived five-criterion rubric on a 1-5 scale per criterion. We find that models given both the source and disease endpoint often produce the highest-scoring hypotheses, showing that LLMs can generate compelling ideas from minimal information. However, these hypotheses are less grounded in the evidence. In contrast, models given the full biological path generate hypotheses more consistent with known mechanistic relationships. We call this evidence-disciplined reasoning. To confirm this effect, we shuffled intermediate path steps while keeping endpoints fixed. Evidence grounding dropped significantly (delta = -0.793, p < 0.001), confirming models genuinely used path structure during reasoning. Our findings show that knowledge graphs support hypothesis generation in two ways: they identify biological endpoint pairs absent from the literature, and their mechanistic paths guide how LLMs reason between them.

A central question in LLM reasoning is whether reinforcement learning (RL) instills genuinely new capabilities or merely reshapes how existing knowledge is expressed during inference. Building on the distribution-sharpening hypothesis, which holds that RL reallocates probability mass toward high-reward trajectories already latent in base models, we ask: can we unlock those latent paths without costly RL fine-tuning? We present Decision-Flow Sampling (DF-Sample), a training-free, data-free inference-time framework that constructs a hierarchical reasoning tree, scores terminal nodes for quality, and back-propagates utilities to inform each intermediate branching decision. Unlike conventional sampling strategies that make purely local step-wise choices, DF-Sample performs explicit global trajectory evaluation before committing to a path, recovering high-quality but low-probability reasoning chains that standard decoding overlooks. On GPQA, DF-Sample achieves 45.6% accuracy, surpassing power sampling (38.9%) and GRPO (39.9%), showing that a training-free method can outperform a trained one. Across three models and four benchmarks, DF-Sample consistently outperforms baselines, indicating substantial latent reasoning potential in pretrained base models.

Inference-time power sampling via Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) can substantially improve large language model (LLM) reasoning without requiring post-training. However, many existing SMC approaches rely on equal-weight resampling, which can aggressively prune low-weight trajectories, discarding potentially correct reasoning paths and degrading the genealogical diversity of the search space. To address this, we introduce Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling (CCPS). Our method applies the Chopthin resampler to LLM decoding: rather than equalizing weights and forcing unnecessary particle duplication, it enforces an upper bound on the ratio between the largest and smallest weights and carries the unequal weights forward. This targeted intervention preserves a richer set of distinct reasoning paths, keeps the weighted SMC approximation unchanged in conditional expectation, and guarantees a lower bound on the post-resampling effective sample size (ESS). To fully exploit this enriched population, we employ a semantic-majority selection mechanism that merges token-identical final trajectories, clusters semantically equivalent answers, and returns the answer supported by the largest number of distinct trajectories. Evaluating across three open-weight models and five reasoning benchmarks, we show that Chopthin increases oracle coverage in 13 of 15 settings. Combined with semantic-majority selection, CCPS matches or exceeds the final-answer accuracy of the Power-SMC baseline in 14 of 15 settings, delivering absolute gains of up to 10.6 percentage points. These findings demonstrate that diversity-preserving resampling and diversity-aware selection are complementary mechanisms for training-free LLM reasoning. Code is available at github.com/MinooAhmadii/chopthin-consensus-power-sampling.

Performing deliberate mathematical reasoning in visual contexts is a hallmark of advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and requires a sophisticated synthesis of perceptual grounding and symbolic logic. However, in the realm of mathematical functions, our investigation reveals a critical modality interference phenomenon: even advanced models, while performing textual computational reasoning, tend to disregard or misinterpret essential visual cues. To address this challenge, we propose Func-R1, which synergistically harmonizes precise visual perception and rigorous logical reasoning. Concretely, built upon an explicitly decoupled architecture, we employ a hierarchical post-training framework to progressively identify critical visual evidence and conduct in-depth theoretical reasoning. Furthermore, the Perception-Aligned Theoretic Optimization (PATO) strategy is proposed to steer policy updating towards internalizing fundamental theoretical properties while dynamically rectifying heterogeneous visual information throughout the reasoning process. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that Func-R1 delivers the optimal performance among open-source MLLMs, even surpassing GPT-5 with an 8.4% improvement on MathVerse's function-oriented tasks.

Speech large language models (SpeechLLMs) offer reduced latency and retain paralinguistic nuances that are typically lost in cascaded automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-based LM architectures. However, they continue to lag behind text-only LLMs on complex reasoning tasks, while real-time spoken interaction imposes strict latency constraints. Although prior works employ Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and concurrent reasoning to enhance reasoning capabilities without inducing prohibitive delays, an inherent accuracy-latency trade-off persists. In this paper, we investigate whether a streaming SpeechLLM can dynamically revise its reasoning traces on the fly. We introduce RetroThinker, a multi-stage post-training framework that equips the Moshi model to self-verify and forward-correct CoT steps during inference. RetroThinker combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on curated retrospective thinking data with length-based direct preference optimization (DPO) to optimize retrospective during early reasoning (i.e., reasoning concurrently while the user speaks). Evaluated on the GSM8K benchmark, RetroThinker significantly improves the accuracy-latency trade-off over non-retrospective baselines, achieving an 11% absolute accuracy gain at a comparable latency.

Test-time adaptation has emerged as a lightweight alternative to costly post-training for improving the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on downstream tasks. Predictive entropy provides a model-derived signal for such adaptation, guiding models toward higher-confidence reasoning states without external verifiers or reward models. However, higher confidence does not necessarily imply correctness, as LLMs may remain highly confident along incorrect reasoning trajectories. We observe that high-confidence reasoning is more likely to be correct when confidence remains stable under local perturbations. Based on this observation, we propose Test-Time Adaptation via Stability-Aware Confidence Optimization (TASCO), a framework that incorporates local stability into confidence-based test-time adaptation while keeping the LLM frozen. TASCO operationalizes local stability by optimizing a lightweight task-level prefix under two alternative perturbation strategies: Random Perturbation promotes distributional stability across trajectories induced by nearby perturbed prefixes, whereas Sharpness-Aware Perturbation targets worst-case local sensitivity. Experiments demonstrate that TASCO improves reasoning accuracy and token efficiency across diverse LLMs and reasoning benchmarks, while behavioral analyses show that it maintains stable confidence under local perturbations without prematurely concentrating the model's predictive distribution.

Most of mathematical knowledge has been communicated through so-called informal use of mathematics and natural language. With large language models (LLMs) being highly adept in using natural language, they achieve strong performance, yet not perfect, in informal mathematical reasoning. Restraining LLMs to informal reasoning misses out on the opportunity to use the discrete verification abilities that machines offer through machine-checkable proofs. In this paper, we bridge the gap between informal and formal reasoning by integrating Lean signals into the informal reasoning process. We introduce Magenta, a training-free agentic pipeline that, given only a natural-language problem, produces an answer, expresses it as a Lean 4 statement, and constructs a machine-checked proof. A statement judge verifies whether the formalisation preserves the original problem, while an error-attribution judge routes failed attempts either to mathematical re-derivation or local Lean repair. Magenta achieves 100% accuracy across all evaluated olympiad benchmarks, including AIME 2025, AIME 2026, and HMMT February 2026. When paired with the open-weight K2-Horizon-7B reasoner, it solves all six IMO 2026 problems. Our analysis shows that statement adjudication is essential for preventing false certificates and that feedback-guided correction outperforms independent resampling on difficult problems.

On-Policy Self-Distillation (OPSD) has emerged as a popular paradigm for large language model (LLM) self-improvement, allowing models to act as their own teachers by leveraging privileged information such as ground-truth solutions. However, recent findings indicate that OPSD can severely degrade the performance of LLMs on complex reasoning tasks: By forcing the student to imitate an artificially confident reasoning trace conditioned on privileged information, OPSD inadvertently suppresses expressions of uncertainty and penalizes the exploratory, self-corrective behaviors required to solve challenging problems. To address this, we introduce Negative Self-Distillation (NSD), a new framework that optimizes LLMs by diverging from flawed reasoning rather than imitating privileged solutions. Instead of relying on ground-truth answers or external supervision, NSD uses the model itself to generate a question-specific negative condition (eg, acting as a ``careless reasoner'') and pushes the student's distribution away from this self-generated negative teacher. Naively applying unlearning objectives to achieve this divergence is problematic, as flawed reasoning tokens are confounded with basic linguistic tokens; indiscriminately penalizing both risks catastrophically degrading the model's foundational language capabilities. We resolve this by designing a dynamic gating mechanism that automatically identifies and isolates reasoning-critical tokens, ensuring gradient updates target only behavioral flaws while preserving the model's linguistic priors. Empirically, NSD consistently outperforms OPSD and other label-free, self-bootstrapping reinforcement learning (RL) baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in various natural language processing tasks, yet their ability to perform multi-step logical reasoning remains an open challenge. Although Chain-of-Thought prompting has improved logical reasoning by enabling models to generate intermediate steps, it lacks mechanisms to assess the coherence of these logical transitions. In this paper, we propose a novel, lightweight evaluation strategy for logical reasoning that uses query-key alignments inside transformer attention heads. By computing a single forward pass and extracting a "QK-score" from carefully chosen heads, our method reveals latent representations that reliably separate valid from invalid inferences, offering a scalable alternative to traditional ablation-based techniques. We also provide an empirical validation on multiple logical reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating improved robustness of our evaluation method against distractors and increased reasoning depth. The experiments were conducted on a diverse set of models, ranging from 1.5B to 70B parameters.

Reasoning language models have made substantial advances on a variety of complex tasks, yet their capabilities remain overwhelmingly English-centric: models primarily reason in English regardless of the language they are prompted in. This is inaccessible for non-English-speaking users, risks losing the intent of the original question, and forgoes knowledge more readily expressed in the target language. In this work, we advance L2 reasoning, the ability of a model to reason consistently in the language of the user's prompt, thus building an in-language bridge between the prompt and the answer. We approach this problem from a data-centric angle, investigating how to optimize data composition and scheduling in SFT for reasoning generalization. Building Tiny Aya L2-Thinker at 3.35B scale, we achieve an L2 reasoning rate above 93% across 60 languages on 6 benchmarks spanning math, commonsense reasoning, instruction following, open-ended generation, and cultural reasoning while keeping performance strong. We show the path to generalizing L2 reasoning to held-out languages goes through broader language coverage, readily available multilingual non-reasoning data, and a sufficient English reasoning backbone. These findings indicate that reasoning is a language-agnostic behavior that can be transferred across typologically diverse languages through careful data mixing and without requiring reasoning supervision in every target language. We release our model weights and multilingual reasoning data to support further research on accessible, in-language reasoning.

Plane geometry remains a significant challenge in AI, requiring the integration of visual perception and mathematical reasoning. While Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) naturally handle visuo-linguistic inputs, they are often computationally intensive and opaque. We demonstrate that a pure Large Language Model (LLM), when equipped with specialized modules, can rival state-of-the-art LMMs on complex geometry problems. Our framework integrates a Geometric Vision Parser, which translates diagrams into symbolic form, with a Symbolic Solver that performs formal deductions, thereby mitigating hallucinations and promoting interpretable reasoning. To enable rigorous evaluation, we curate a benchmark of challenging problems from the 2025 Chinese Zhongkao examinations, ensuring data novelty and testing deeper deductive skills. Experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves performance comparable to Gemini 2.5 Pro while delivering clearer, human-like solutions.

Chain-of-thought reasoning provides a structured computation between a model's input and final answer. Yet it is often evaluated through endpoint accuracy, which ignores the path taken to reach that answer. An emerging line of work addresses this limitation using entropy profiles, which track how uncertainty evolves over the reasoning process but do not reveal which competing hypotheses account for that uncertainty. We introduce answer-distribution trajectories, a stochastic-dynamics-inspired representation that tracks the model's full predictive distribution over answers as reasoning unfolds. As a strictly finer representation than endpoint and entropy summaries, answer-distribution trajectories enable us to characterize a trace through a dynamical reasoning profile spanning exploration, revision, motion, and commitment, and to distinguish different dynamical mechanisms of reasoning success and failure. Across sixteen open-weight language models and four reasoning benchmarks, we show that traces with the same endpoint and similar entropy profiles can exhibit substantially different reasoning dynamics. We further find substantial variation in these dynamics both within and across models and tasks, with different objectives favoring different dynamical profiles. Additionally, we show that training and inference choices systematically reshape these profiles. Our results suggest that answer-distribution trajectories provide a rich framework for analysing and evaluating the dynamics of LLM reasoning.

Multi-step LLM reasoning lacks a machine-recheckable ledger: discarded reasoning paths leave no auditable record. We propose the Deposon scattering layer, which binds each node of an LLM-generated concept-decomposition graph to a two-parameter Deposon state; paths undergo three-channel scattering -- transmission, reflection, irreversible dissipation -- obeying T+R+A=1 for arbitrary parameters, with a maximum per-path energy-audit deviation of 2.2E-16 (machine epsilon). We report all three evidence tiers honestly. On synthetic trap benchmarks the path-filtering gain is closed (pre-registered): unified reaches 100% versus a decoy-capture baseline at 7%/10%. On real benchmarks the layer is indistinguishable from a trivial six-keyword rule filter (GSM8K 0.87 >= 0.85, McNemar p=0.5; StrategyQA 0.899 = 0.899); no difference is detected here, so we sharpen the claim to "the differential value lies solely in machine verifiability." Fusion yields a second negative result: convex combinations with a semantic prior never improve (physics 0.484 -> 0.452), and the apparent lambda=2 gain is an anti-field artifact; any fusion gain must be nonlinear. Modeling the reverse dynamics as a potential game on the graph, we evidence an auditable scalar's monotonicity and near-gradientness and quantify the empirical coordination ratio (ECR). The three formalized dynamical-equivalence propositions (P1a/P1b/T-P1c) are falsified under the pre-registered kill protocol, and the potential-game claim is downgraded to approximate (cyclic-graph median residual 0.669): only consistency-level evidence survives at the dynamical level. Code: github.com/zeroandcat/Deposon.

Performance modeling is central to hardware design and software optimization, yet constructing these models requires structured reasoning about computation, data reuse, storage, and movement. We introduce PerfReasoning, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs both as direct performance reasoners and as generators of analytical performance-model code. Given workload, architecture, and mapping specifications, models compare mappings and predict off-chip traffic and buffer requirements. The strongest closed-source models exceed 90% on reasoning-based Q&A, and the best open-weight model reaches 82.4%. However, model construction is substantially harder: while GPT-5.6 Sol exceeds 80% pass rate, all other model configurations average below 45% and vary markedly across runs. Task-specific RL raises a 4B model's mapping-reasoning accuracy by 15.7 points, whereas feedback-free multi-round self-revision prompting is not reliably effective. PerfReasoning exposes the gap between plausible architectural reasoning and reliable performance-model construction. We will publicly release the benchmark to support reproducible evaluation and track future progress.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and on-policy distillation (OPD) have emerged as two dominant methods for post-training reasoning LLMs. Prior work uses OPD's dense token-level supervision to complement the sparse RL reward, fusing the two signals within a single step: either as a \emph{weighted-additive combination} or a \emph{teacher-modulated rescaling} of the RL advantage. In this paper, we show that a simple two-stage scheme, OPD-then-RL, consistently outperforms pure OPD, pure RLVR, and all such joint baselines across logic and math reasoning benchmarks. Beyond the empirical results, we further provide a systematic understanding of this through pass@$k$ behavior, learning dynamics, and parameter updates, yielding a consistent explanation: OPD expands the student's coverage of teacher-supported solutions and RL sharpens within that support, while jointly optimizing the two signals causes them to interfere.To provide a practical recipe, we find that the OPD validation score is the key signal for when to switch to RL, and that OPD is a better cold start for RL than SFT. Together, our results establish OPD-then-RL as a simple yet strong way to combine the two methods, turning two entangled signals into complementary stages.

Coreference resolution is an important task in contextual reasoning. In this paper, we investigate the mechanism for representing and retrieving singular and plural entities for plural reference. We use a combination of mechanistic interpretability and attention pattern analysis to study the process in which LLMs predict a pronoun to refer back to previously mentioned entities. Using a range of causal intervention techniques, we find a set of attention heads that are responsible for (1) representing coreference information in the input, (2) identifying entities that form a plural reference, (3) transferring the information to the component that is responsible for selecting the antecedents and predicting the pronoun. We also find that LLMs align with humans in preference for plural pronoun. Specifically, entities in a plural construction are more likely to be referred to as a plural entity if they are ontologically similar and are linked by the conjunction "and".

Long-output reasoning has made the key--value (KV) cache a critical memory bottleneck for efficient LLM serving. Existing KV compression methods usually rely on a predefined per-request budget and adjust only which KV states are retained, leaving the total capacity fixed throughout decoding. However, reasoning workloads exhibit substantial demand variation: different requests require different KV capacities, and the attention demand of an individual request evolves during generation. We introduce \textbf{GrowPage}, an on-demand KV budgeting framework that treats KV capacity as a runtime resource. GrowPage maintains lightweight dual-timescale query summaries to capture recent and long-term attention behaviors, and uses their relative attention working sets to estimate demand evolution. At each capacity boundary, GrowPage either compresses KV states within the current allocation or acquires an additional physical page when broader demand emerges. By integrating with PagedAttention's page-level memory abstraction, GrowPage preserves continuous batching and prefix caching. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks across multiple models show that GrowPage achieves a superior performance--throughput trade-off over existing approaches.

Reasoning traces of large language models are widely read as containing "breakthrough" moments and early-legible fates. Both readings rest on measurements missing a counterfactual control at the level of the claim; we supply both controls. First, a restart-controlled truncation probe separates when a solution fits the continuation budget from when a prefix carries value that fresh computation cannot buy, comparing per-anchor continuation solve rates against from-scratch restart curves at matched total generated-token budget. Applied to 178 problem-model cells (89 MATH problems x two small open models, an outcome-blind but difficulty-targeted cohort), exactly 1 of 178 cells survives as prefix-limited; restart dose-response separates a compute-starved model from a capability-limited one; and wherever the matched budget lies inside the restart grid, continuing the model's own prefix beats restarting (9 of 9) -- predominantly compute compression rather than expanded reachability. Second, a pre-registered, difficulty-controlled test finds no detectable outcome information in early-window internal signals beyond a problem-difficulty baseline, and two generation-free analyses of public corpora show why this control is needed: a trace-blind difficulty proxy reaches AUROC 0.873 on 192K DeepSeek-R1 generations -- inside the published probe range -- and a closely matched reconstruction of the closest published early-window positive recovers a comparable pooled result (0.849) while within problem it is statistically indistinguishable from chance at all ten anchors (0.496 at t=4); a post-hoc within-targeted probe finds only a small average residual, concentrated in three low-failure problems. High pooled probe AUROCs cannot by themselves establish within-attempt information; a question-only baseline or within-problem evaluation is required.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) drives chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models, yet its binary outcome reward cannot distinguish among correct trajectories. Existing dense reward alternatives, from surface heuristics to process reward models, either ignore the expert solutions already present in training corpora or require expensive offline annotation. We propose Gradient-Aligned Reward (GAR), which operates in the policy's own gradient space: truncated backpropagation through the output projection layer extracts a compact gradient vector for each rollout, and cosine similarity with an expert-anchor gradient yields a dense, reasoning-aware reward with less than 9% wall-clock overhead. We prove that this cosine admits a multiplicative decomposition into prediction-error and activation-pattern factors, providing a concrete characterization of what the alignment signal measures. On Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B, GAR consistently improves over GRPO and other baselines on competition-level math benchmarks and transfers to GPQA Diamond and MMLU-Pro without domain-specific data. Code and data are available at https://github.com/LQgdwind/GAR.

How humans grow and maintain abstract knowledge from the sparse, streaming noisy data of experience is a longstanding challenge in cognitive science. Any computational account must satisfy at least three desiderata: It must be (1) data-efficient and compute-efficient, (2) capture gradations of uncertainty to support intelligent inquiry and information gathering, and (3) be flexible enough to mentally represent the endless range of concepts people can learn and think about. Here we introduce a computational model that captures these three properties, by encoding symbolic knowledge as mental programs that combine natural language with source code, and sequentially inferring mental programs using LLM-guided Bayesian learning algorithms. Across a range of behavioral studies this model successfully reproduces quantitative signatures of human inductive learning and active inquiry, such as anchoring, garden-pathing, and other effects. In contrast, pure LLMs and classic Bayesian models either fail at the underlying task, or do not reproduce human behavior, or succeed only at exorbitant computational cost. These results suggest that one way humans continually grow their knowledge is by mentally representing many hypotheses spanning language-like and program-like representations, then revising those hypotheses to approximate Bayesian updates, while a bottom-up neural mechanism (an LLM) makes inference both tractable and learnable.

Tables are ubiquitous across diverse domains, yet reasoning over them remains a significant challenge for modern large language models (LLMs). Current approaches typically linearize tables into sequences, inherently overlooking their intrinsic two-dimensional and hierarchical structure. To address this, we propose H2Table (Hierarchical Hypergraph-Enhanced Table Reasoning), a novel framework that represents complex tables as hierarchical nested hypergraphs. To process this representation, we design a tailored hypergraph encoder to facilitate message passing between hyperedges (headers) and nodes (cells), thereby perceiving the semantic entailment relationships between them within complex tables. Furthermore, we introduce a set of learnable query vectors acting as a lightweight bridge to extract representative structural embeddings from the encoder into the LLM. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach effectively handles complex table question answering tasks with hierarchical nested headers. Notably, on the HiTab dataset, H2Table achieves an average improvement of 22.88% over state-of-the-art baselines on highly complex tables with a nesting depth of four. Our code is available at: https://github.com/lila120/h2table.

When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.

Reinforcement learning (RL), particularly RL with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), has recently emerged as a central paradigm for enhancing large language models' (LLMs) reasoning abilities, demonstrating remarkable effectiveness across reasoning tasks. Recent studies suggest that high-entropy tokens play an exceptionally important role in model training, since training with only the highest 20% entropy tokens yields significant performance gains. However, why such high-entropy tokens are beneficial remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we find that although high-entropy tokens within one answer tend to correlate with large gradient magnitude, entropy alone fails to consistently reflect token importance across different answers, considering the variations in the answer-level reward signals. Based on this observation, we introduce the Gradient Magnitude-based Token Selection (GMTS) method to quantify token importance, which leverages the entropy-gradient connection to approximate gradient-magnitude rankings for token selection. We find that training on the top 20% tokens ranked by GMTS consistently outperforms entropy-based token selection across three reasoning domains and various model sizes, suggesting that GMTS provides a more fine-grained estimate of token contribution for RLVR training.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown remarkable success in STEM domains, where progress is often driven by vertical, step-by-step deduction under relatively stable symbol systems. Their horizontal, interdisciplinary cultural reasoning, however, remains underexplored.We propose CM2, a multi-agent framework grounded in the cognitive pathway of human cultural interpretation. CM2 integrates multimodal perception, retrieval-augmented generation, networked reasoning, gated fusion, and reward-driven feedback.Experiments on CM2D across multiple MLLM backbones show consistent gains over CoT and typical reasoning paradigms; ablations validate each module's contribution, and conflict analyses confirm genuine cross-modal arbitration.

Current dialogue systems struggle with dynamic information retrieval, often leading to hallucinations and lower response accuracy. We address this by adapting the ReAct framework for Task-Oriented Dialogue, enabling Large Language Models (LLMs) to access external knowledge and produce factual responses. Mainly, we propose an unsupervised fine-tuning pipeline that harvests reasoning trajectories via in-context learning inference. High-quality samples are filtered using an LLM-based judge to construct a robust training set. This is enhanced by a unsupervised self-improvement loop, where improved checkpoints generate increasingly better trajectories for subsequent fine-tuning iterations. Experiments on the SIMMC dataset demonstrate that ReAct-based systems outperform baselines due to superior reasoning and tool use. Notably, our fine-tuned 8B model surpasses a 70B in-context system. Finally, we present an error analysis, impact of scene complexity, and cross-domain generalization.

As pretraining scaling laws approach saturation, Test-Time Scaling (TTS) has emerged as an important direction for improving reasoning by allocating inference-time compute to a fixed model prior. Viewed at a high level, TTS reframes inference as search over a space of partial reasoning states. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) exposes intermediate steps, common instantiations rely on single-trajectory decoding, limiting recovery from early errors and exploration. This survey systematizes recent progress in tree-search-based reasoning, viewing inference as instance-specific optimization rather than decoding. We trace the evolution from uninformed search to Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), highlighting how sampling-based control supports principled exploration-exploitation trade-offs. To unify a fragmented literature, we introduce a Unified Design Space spanning search topology, evaluation signals, and control dynamics, and advocate a standardized compute-reporting abstraction to make compute-accuracy trade-offs explicit and comparable.

Generating multiple diverse and high-quality solutions is valuable for many applications, such as code-test generation and drug discovery. However, Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to converge on a single high-confidence solution during inference, limiting exploration of alternative valid solution paths. Existing test-time methods promote diversity through tree-like search and prune semantically similar branches using response-level semantic embeddings. However, we find that such embeddings are easily confounded by linguistic and stylistic similarities, making it difficult to distinguish genuinely distinct solution paths. To address this, we introduce Answer Probing, which probes the potential answer an LLM would reach from an intermediate reasoning path. We demonstrate that the hidden states of probed answers more effectively differentiate distinct solution paths than semantic embeddings, and the perplexity of probed answers serves as a practical proxy for reasoning correctness. Based on these findings, we propose Answer Probing-Guided Tree Search (APTS), which guides the tree search by the probed answers' hidden state similarity and perplexity. Experiments on three reasoning tasks across two LLMs show that APTS consistently enhances solution diversity, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness.

Neurosymbolic reasoning has shown promising success in addressing complex reasoning tasks by combining large language models (LLMs) and symbolic solvers. While this approach shows promise, a fundamental challenge remains: improving the accuracy of translations from natural language to logical formulas. Current methods predominantly rely on prompt engineering, which is difficult to scale across different domains and input formats. Drawing inspiration from the success of fine-tuning in other model adaptation and alignment applications, we propose a fine-tuning-based Stratified Consistency Distillation approach: (1) We generate K logical translations per input using a frontier LLM and cluster them by semantic equivalence (2) Based on the entropy level, we apply majority voting (low entropy), LLM-as-a-Judge (medium entropy), or unification/abstention (high entropy), and (3) fine-tune a smaller model using the selected pseudo-labels. Our experiments show significant and consistent improvements in both Pass@K and our novel Equivalent Logical Similarity metrics, demonstrating the potential of advancing logical translation through consistency distillation.

Logical reasoning with large language models (LLMs) is a critical capability, as it reflects a system's ability to correctly deduce hypotheses from a given context using faithful deductive processes. However, LLM reasoning has often been shown to be sensitive to small surface-level variations in problem formulation, raising questions about whether models truly follow the underlying logical structure. Studying this behavior is challenging because the symbolic components of logical problems, such as operators and predicates, are difficult to systematically manipulate in natural language. We introduce a tool-driven framework for generating controlled, label-preserving edits to logical reasoning problems. Our method operates on symbolic representations of first-order logic and constraint satisfaction problem tasks, enabling targeted modifications to logical operators and other structural components before translating them back into natural language. Using this framework, we evaluate various LLMs under cumulative and individual operator edits and analyze their behavior in response to these changes. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses show that LLM reasoning behavior under controlled operator edits is inconsistent, regardless of model size or family: models sometimes adapt correctly to structural changes but often fail to track their logical consequences. The results from this automated stress test enable an evaluation of language models across different dimensions and help measure the reliability of their reasoning.

This paper addresses the problem of translating natural-language routing rules written by business administrators into executable workflow graphs for enterprise contact centers. Each target is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of conditional actions with parallel branches, hit-first fallback chains, and per-branch Boolean predicates, encoded in the JSON dialect of a commercial routing platform. We show that neuro-symbolic decomposition enables lower-cost, non-reasoning large language models to generate complex workflow DAGs at production-relevant quality without expensive extended-reasoning models. Our central diagnostic is an emission-density bottleneck: on a 635-rule benchmark of manufactured synthetic data, models select the correct graph nodes with high accuracy but increasingly misconfigure attributes and Boolean grouping as the number of interdependent nodes emitted in one pass grows. We therefore move combinatorial graph construction from the model into a deterministic compiler driven by a compact intermediate representation, with a learned registry-selection front end that focuses generation on relevant vocabulary. Across four models, the full system reaches approximately 89% LLM-judge validity, approximately 90% exact-match condition accuracy, and 99-100% valid JSON while using roughly half the per-rule prompt tokens of a monolithic prompt. On GPT-5.3-chat, the method improves judge validity by 24 percentage points and achieves statistical equivalence to a reasoning model's out-of-the-box quality, although an approximately 8-point frontier gap remains. We also present a deployment path and transferable lessons for structured-generation applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to annotate structured product data in e-commerce, but early deployment often begins as a cold-start problem: only limited pre-launch labels are available, the value of expensive reasoning is unknown, and human review is needed before the system can be trusted at scale. This challenge is especially common in rule-based annotation workflows, where each item must satisfy multiple business rules and both model errors and ambiguous rule boundaries affect final decisions. We introduce the Differential Reasoning Router (DRR), a cost-aware framework for cold-start LLM annotation that jointly optimizes model selection and human escalation. Rather than treating a reasoning model as a default fallback, DRR estimates separate success probabilities for a direct model and a reasoning model at both the sample and business-rule levels, enabling adaptive routing: easy cases are handled directly, reasoning is reserved for cases where it is expected to improve the decision, and likely double-failure or rule-disagreement cases are escalated to human annotators. The resulting labels provide targeted ground truth for prompt engineering, supervised fine-tuning, calibration, and rule refinement, enabling a gradual shift from human-heavy cold-start annotation toward high-confidence automated routing. In a production e-commerce workflow, DRR reaches accuracy parity with the strongest confidence-based router while achieving more than 60% reasoning-token cost savings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive scientific research are increasingly integrated as assistants for scientific discovery. However, most research papers omit the fine-grained cognitive process of examining constraints, failed alternatives, and iterative decisions required to achieve the desired goal. Such cognitive processes are vital for real-world scientists working toward specific goals under constraints. In this paper, we show that LLMs, when trained to produce such cognitive traces, perform better as scientific discovery assistants than when trained solely on scientific literature. We propose COGTRL, a trajectory-level reinforcement learning framework that trains LLMs to emulate cognitively grounded reasoning by jointly optimizing cognitive traces and the scientific steps produced in an interleaved manner. Across two 3B-parameter models and two scientific domains (AI and Materials Science), COGTRL improves method quality by an average of 7.85 points over comparable 3B model baselines and achieves competitive performance relative to 70B parameter models. Moreover, analysis by domain experts shows a preference for methods generated by COGTRL over the baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, which depends critically on inference-time decisions. Yet these decisions are commonly handled by static, one-size-fits-all policies, limiting adaptation to diverse tasks and reasoning stages. Recent adaptive methods partially address this limitation, but they primarily adapt either decoding stochasticity (how the model explores) or reasoning compute (how long the model reasons) in isolation, leaving their interaction within a single reasoning trajectory unmodeled. To address this challenge, we shift toward a within-trajectory joint control view, and instantiate it in AutoCRAT, a decoder-side controller for frozen backbones. Using only signals available during decoding, AutoCRAT jointly adjusts sampling stochasticity and reasoning budget during generation. AutoCRAT operates over a discrete action space and updates control decisions only at semantic boundaries, improving stability while remaining responsive to the evolving reasoning process. Comprehensive evaluation across 6 benchmarks demonstrates that AutoCRAT (I) uses 13.8-52.7% fewer inference tokens on average than recommended static configurations, (II) surpasses recommended static and adaptive baselines by 1.5-4.5% in relative accuracy, and (III) enjoys strong cross-backbone transferability.

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce fluent but weakly grounded conclusions when reasoning over non-interactive, long-form narratives. A central failure mode is that unsupported intermediate hypotheses can enter the reasoning trajectory and contaminate subsequent inference, especially when evidence is scattered across distant parts of the story. To address this problem, we propose EVAR, an evidence-validated hypothesis admission framework for budget-aware narrative reasoning. EVAR first compiles the narrative into an immutable evidence store of source-linked atomic claims and assigns an instance-specific inference budget from unresolved gaps and uncertainty signals. During refinement, EVAR directly proposes candidate hypotheses for unresolved gaps, constructs hypothesis-conditioned validation challenges, and verifies each candidate against the locked store before admission: supported hypotheses enter the answer-supporting state, unverifiable ones are quarantined, and contradictory ones are discarded. A sufficiency-based stopping mechanism further avoids unnecessary refinement. Experiments on NarraCrime and multiple public reasoning benchmarks show that EVAR improves both task performance and evidence faithfulness while maintaining controllable inference cost.

We study a large language model (LLM) service in which a provider chooses a per-token price and a default reasoning-token allocation, while a user may accept the default, customize the allocation, or exit. Larger allocations can improve accuracy but increase token cost and latency. We model this interaction as a Stackelberg game and derive the user's unique optimal customized allocation in closed form. For any price, the acceptable defaults form either an empty set or a compact interval. We characterize the provider's optimal default through a three-regime rule, reduce equilibrium computation to a one-dimensional price optimization, and prove the existence of the equilibrium. We further show that defaults affect the implemented reasoning allocation only when users value the convenience of avoiding customization; otherwise, every service-providing outcome implements the user's optimal customized allocation. Experiments with two compact open-weight reasoning models on five mathematics and science benchmarks support the accuracy-token model and show how model and task characteristics determine equilibrium prices, defaults, and reasoning allocations.

The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search. Prior process-level methods focus on the coherence and redundancy of chain-of-thought (CoT), and most benchmark tasks have a single objective solvable by static capabilities such as derivation and tool use, leaving search organization unmeasured. We introduce TsuGO, a process-level reasoning benchmark for evaluating Search Efficiency in LLM reasoning through Go life-and-death problems. These problems provide closed and verifiable solution spaces with an inherent adversarial structure, making candidate generation, response checking, branch comparison, and backtracking necessary parts of reasoning rather than incidental trace patterns. By constraining the solution space, TsuGO disentangles domain knowledge from search organization, parses CoT into a structured search tree, and reports Search Efficiency together with Token Efficiency and other diagnostic metrics and visualizations. Experiments show that current LLMs remain far from stable tsumego solving: stronger models succeed by finding the correct candidate earlier and sustaining effort on productive branches, but most models still behave much closer to unguided search algorithms than to neural-guided KataGo. Longer CoT or higher Token Efficiency does not necessarily imply better search. Our results identify search organization and reasoning-resource allocation as missing dimensions in LLM reasoning evaluation.

Long-horizon LLM agents must preserve information from past interactions to support future tasks. Existing memory systems typically rely on eager consolidation, invoking LLMs after each interaction to extract, summarize, or update memories. This design makes memory construction increasingly costly as conversations grow. Coarse summarization can reduce construction cost but risks discarding fine-grained contextual evidence, whereas larger retrieval contexts or multi-hop LLM reasoning shift the overhead to query time. We present LycheeMemory V2, an efficient long-term memory framework that replaces turn-level consolidation with semantic segment-level consolidation. Instead of consolidating every interaction, LycheeMemory batches multiple exchanges into segments and encodes each finalized segment into context-independent typed memory records. Segment-level batching lowers LLM encoding frequency, while semantic boundary detection helps preserve coherent event-level and temporal evidence compared with fixed-window batching. The resulting records are organized with lightweight structured indexes for query-planned evidence retrieval. Experiments using GPT-4.1-Mini show that LycheeMemory achieves state-of-the-art performance, reaching 89.22% on LoCoMo and 92.20% on LongMemEval-S. Compared with A-Mem, it reduces construction tokens by 86.0% on LoCoMo and 75.9% on LongMemEval-S without increasing query-time token usage. More broadly, our results suggest that the accuracy--cost trade-off of long-term agent memory depends not only on what information is retained, but also on the granularity at which it is consolidated.

Scientific papers contain fine-grained records of problem solving: authors mention technical obstacles and methods that were used to address them, often along with reasoning on why those methods were chosen. We introduce MUSE (Mining Underlying Scientific Explanations), a full-text, multi-domain resource of scientific Problem-Solution-Rationale (P-S-R) triplets. We curate 579 expert-annotated full-text paragraphs, with a rich annotation schema covering salient problem, solution, and rationale spans, solves and rationale_of links and conceptual coreference. A modular extraction pipeline scales this annotation to build a high-quality knowledge base of 37K source-grounded P-S-R triplets. We evaluate the extraction components and include a preliminary experiment training a rationale-supervised LLM for scientific problem solving. Interestingly, we find that rationale supervision improves performance on complex, multi-constraint problems but can harm performance on simpler ones.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely applied across chemical tasks, such as molecular property prediction, which underpins drug discovery. Molecular LLMs represent a molecule through several modalities, notably a 1D SMILES sequence or a 2D molecular graph. Both encode molecular information implicitly, so the contribution of individual substructures remains opaque. Retrieval and augmentation methods add context, but from external sources. However, the cues chemists reason over are the internal substructures that drive a property up or down. We propose MR-MoL, a multi-granular rationale-guided molecular LLM that supplies this evidence directly. A fine-tuned GNN scores each substructure through masking, and the most influential ones are serialized as a ranked, direction-tagged rationale that the LLM reads alongside the SMILES sequence and molecular graph. The rationale spans three levels of granularity: Murcko scaffolds with their side chains, BRICS fragments, and functional groups. This is, to our knowledge, the first method to expose GNN-derived attributions to an LLM as evidence for property prediction. On eight MoleculeNet tasks, MR-MoL achieves the best overall results among generalist models and narrows the gap to specialist models tuned for each task. Five diagnostics further confirm that the model reads the rationale rather than merely benefiting from its presence. Its direction, rank, and substructure each shape the prediction, and its attributions reproduce known structure-property relationships.

Due to the diversity of real-world time series, no single forecasting model consistently dominates across all samples. Ensemble learning addresses this by combining complementary model strengths, yet existing methods rely on fixed rules or black-box models based solely on numerical inputs, failing to leverage LLM reasoning for interpretable weighting decisions. We propose REATS, which leverages LLM reasoning capabilities as an intelligent ensemble router that jointly processes textual temporal pattern descriptions and numerical features to produce interpretable, sample-adaptive ensemble weights through chain-of-thought reasoning. To enable effective LLM-based ensembling, we study its key design choices and propose: (i) a structured input pipeline that transforms raw time series into hybrid textual--numerical representations with fixed token cost, enabling rule-based chain-of-thought construction without API dependency, augmented with retrieved similar-sample priors; (ii) a diverse multi-row weight supervision scheme coupled with a token-efficient percentage-table format that reduces numerical complexity and mitigates LLM hallucinations; and (iii) a two-stage fine-tuning framework combining SFT with GRPO, where a reciprocal reward mapping transforms the continuous unbounded MSE gap into bounded signals with amplified near-oracle sensitivity, addressing the uniform sensitivity and outlier-dominated advantage compression inherent in naive reward designs for regression-based GRPO. Experiments on eight benchmarks demonstrate that REATS outperforms competitive ensemble baselines while providing natural language explanations and demonstrating strong transfer learning and out-of-domain generalization to unseen candidate models.

Leading large language model providers now conceal their models' step-by-step reasoning, or chain-of-thought, to protect intellectual property and limit information leakage. Rather than storing these traces server-side, providers return them to the client as blocks of encrypted text, which the client passes back with each subsequent request. Building on prior research, we identify an architectural vulnerability: these encrypted blocks are fully compatible and interchangeable across different sessions, users, and models within a provider's ecosystem. We exploit this compatibility to develop a scalable decryption jailbreak. By injecting an encrypted reasoning trace from a given model into a weaker, and less safeguarded model from the same provider, we force it to decode and output the trace verbatim in plaintext, without ever jailbreaking the more capable model directly. This vulnerability enables four distinct attack vectors. First, it circumvents anti-distillation mechanisms, allowing adversaries to extract a proprietary model's reasoning, as we demonstrate across Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Second, it allows for large-scale private data extraction. Developers frequently share session logs publicly, unaware of contents of the encrypted blocks. By decoding 315,320 reasoning blocks scraped from public repositories, we recovered 367 Personally Identifiable Information (PII) artifacts and 182 credentials. Third, it inadvertently reveals hazardous information hidden within the reasoning process, even in cases where the model's final, visible output safely rejects a malicious request. Fourth, attackers can leverage this flaw to execute invisible prompt injections, embedding malicious payloads entirely within encrypted blocks to poison public agentic rollouts. Following responsible disclosure, we propose concrete cryptographic and system-level mitigations to secure client-side reasoning.

LLM agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent social settings where they must cooperate, negotiate, and adapt to other agents. Measuring and improving these social skills is hard because, unlike math or logic, social interaction offers no objective ground truth: evaluations fall back on LLM judges, which are costly, subjective, and noisy, and models get no reliable signal to learn from. To address both, we first introduce Social Gym, an environment of 21 multi-agent social games (e.g., Werewolves, Resistance, Spyfall) whose rule-decided outcomes make agent performance verifiable and objective, with an Elo tournament that produces a cross-game leaderboard. Benchmarking experiments show that while GPT-5-mini tops the leaderboard, no model excels at all games uniformly or in all game roles, pointing to limitations of social reasoning. Motivated by this, we additionally propose SPaRTan (Self-Play and Reflect-Transfer), a training-free self-improvement loop: a model plays a game, reflects on its trajectories and their outcomes to produce a transferable playbook, and applies that playbook in subsequent games. Our results show that SPaRTan playbooks help GPT-5-mini agents level their performance on weaker roles, but largely do not improve Qwen3-32B's performance. Together, Social Gym and SPaRTan offer a reproducible, verifiable foundation for measuring and improving LLM social reasoning without weight updates.

Recommendation systems thrive on personalization, where ''correctness'' is rarely a binary truth but a matter of subjective human preference. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous verifiers of safety and quality guidelines, they face a distinctive challenge: context-aware preference alignment. Recent gains in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are indexed mostly on objective, mathematical tasks. Through a large-scale study spanning both proprietary and open-source models on four real-world verification tasks from a production recommender platform, we ask whether explicit reasoning generalizes to subjective, human-centric industry rubrics. We expose a fundamental vulnerability: rigid, math-centric reasoning traces actively degrade verification, and applying standard RLVR triggers a phenomenon we term reasoning collapse, in which the policy abandons deliberation in favor of rapid heuristic guessing. We introduce a conditional length-penalized post-training algorithm that intertwines verification accuracy with bounded reasoning length, halting collapse and recovering performance. Finally, we show that a reasoning trace's efficacy is tightly coupled with its socio-linguistic framing: across 1500 synthesized personas, verification accuracy swings by nearly 0.38 macro-F1 depending solely on the adopted reasoning persona---evidence that much subjective-verification error is really reasoning-style mismatch. This observation motivates a mid-training architecture that routes reasoning through contextually aligned personas. This work offers both a scalable algorithmic patch and a long-term architectural blueprint for aligning reasoning models with real-world subjective constraints.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as data-driven reasoners, yet their chains-of-thought (CoT) can be unfaithful even when final answers are correct. Most existing verification'' signals are not diagnostic: answer matching observes only the outcome, LLM-as-judge provides subjective and non-verifiable critiques, and scalar rewards (e.g., PRMs/RMs) offer little insight into where a multi-step derivation fails.We propose \textbf{SymDiag}, a neuro-symbolic framework that \textbf{reframes reasoning verification as structured failure diagnosis}. SymDiag translates natural-language CoT into symbolic constraints and performs step-level satisfiability/entailment checks to (i) localize failing steps and (ii) produce verifiable diagnostic evidence, including counterexamples, inconsistency witnesses, and missing-premise indicators. A central challenge is that apparent logic violations'' can be caused either by genuine reasoning defects or by neural-to-symbolic translation noise. SymDiag therefore incorporates a Self-Auditor that disentangles TranslationError from ReasoningError via dual symbolic encodings consistency checks, enabling robust diagnosis under partial observability. Across diverse mathematical, logical, scientific, and general reasoning benchmarks, SymDiag improves detection of unfaithful reasoning and provides substantially more effective feedback for multi-round reasoning repair than outcome-only verification and LLM-based judging, offering a principled foundation for trustworthy and scalable reasoning diagnosis.

We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models). The first, RPC, aggregates token probabilities and self-consistency at inference; the second, LCF, trains projectors that split hidden states into "content" and "logic" and edits the logic part toward a valid region. Validating such reliability claims matters because the original evaluations are run by each method's own authors and were never independently reproduced or stress-tested across models and domains, and LCF shipped no public code. We re-run RPC's published-path aggregation and re-implement LCF's projector, contrastive, and intervention pipeline, then extend both to text-to-SQL, legal extraction, fallacy identification, and precedent grading, and probe LCF's representation directly. RPC reproduces the original grid exactly on the authors' released reasoning paths; on four new domains its edge over self-consistency is never significant (ties or small mixed differences, paired p >= 0.28), and on BIRD, the one domain where we vary the budget, the edge grows with K as predicted but its largest gap (+2.5 accuracy at K=32, p=0.16) reverses to -0.25 when we enlarge the sample to n=200. LCF's logic-validity direction is real but weak (0.82 separability at the single best sub-layer versus 0.95 for a semantic-attribute control); its one positive effect (Qwen3 $Δ$Prob) is not significant (p=0.56), while it significantly reduces $Δ$Prob on two of the other three models.

Multilingual reasoning models are commonly evaluated by whether they arrive at the correct answer, but not by whether they preserve the intended language while reasoning and responding. This omission conceals important multilingual behaviors that emerge as tasks become harder. In this paper, we study task difficulty, task accuracy, thinking-language consistency (TC), and answer-language consistency (AC) across reasoning models using PolyMath benchmark in eight languages and four difficulty levels. We uncover four findings: (1) language consistency exhibits four difficulty-dependent behaviors: output-language consistency remains aligned with input, remains misaligned, degrades gradually, or collapses abruptly. (2) We identify the language consistency breakdown effect, where increasing difficulty can cause a sudden drop in output-language consistency, especially in less strongly represented and non-Latin-script languages. (3) Due to this breakdown effect, accuracy can be preserved or even improved at a harder difficulty level as the model shifts to its internal dominant language. (4) Quantization can improve or degrade output-language consistency independently of its effect on accuracy, with GPTQ and AWQ often outperforming AutoRound under tolerance-based voting with ε = 1.0. These results show that multilingual capability cannot be characterized by accuracy alone; reliable evaluation should jointly consider task accuracy, language consistency, and task difficulty for multilingual benchmarks.

The Tower of Hanoi is a simple planning puzzle that in prior work has proven challenging for large reasoning models (LRMs). Current models solve the standard formulation of the puzzle, but still struggle with the flat-to-flat variant (where initial and goal states are not restricted to have all rings on a single peg). This paper presents an in-depth study of how both small, in-house Transformers and large, third-party LRMs solve this task. To understand the failures mechanistically, we first train small Transformers from scratch on precomputed solution traces. Using a variety of interpretability techniques, we show that these Transformers develop an emergent world model: a linearly decodable, geometrically faithful representation of the puzzle's state space (the Sierpinski triangle), that is causally involved in solving the puzzles. Second, we return to the large LLMs and apply our techniques to two frontier reasoning models, Qwen3.6-27B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B, that attempt to solve the task through extended chain-of-thought. Surprisingly, we find that both models encode the Sierpinski world model near-perfectly at the end of the prompt, and yet fail at the majority of tasks when there are more than 3 rings. We locate the source of this failure in the decaying representation of the world model. We probe for the representation at different stages during planning, and establish causality by showing that performance can be improved by injecting the prompt-time representation at inference. The failure of the models is thus one of maintenance of the required representations, not their absence, and performance is at least partially recoverable. These results thus reframe the reported collapse in performance from prior work: current Large Reasoning Models build a world model, and then lose it.

Token-level collaboration allows a large language model (LLM) to assist a small language model (SLM) when their predictions diverge. Existing methods either use LLM-generated intervention tokens or rank candidates with the LLM's next-token probabilities. Both rely on the LLM's local preference, even though an LLM-selected token may be difficult for the SLM to build on. We present FutureBridge, which ranks joint LLM-SLM token candidates according to how well they support the SLM's subsequent reasoning. During training, an answer-verified LLM trajectory supplies a fixed shared future, and a frozen SLM evaluates every candidate under this common context. The resulting counterfactual scores supervise a lightweight token reranker that observes only the current state and candidate token. At inference, FutureBridge uses the LLM only to expand the candidate pool, selects one token, and returns generation to the SLM without generating or appending a future suffix. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, FutureBridge improves the Qwen3-1.7B SLM's Math Avg. by 35.1% relative to greedy SLM decoding. These results indicate that token selection benefits from modeling whether the receiving SLM can use each candidate to continue reasoning, rather than relying on the LLM's local preference alone.

Multilingual reasoning transfer is crucial for extending reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) beyond high-resource languages. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) and its variants have emerged as a promising paradigm, providing dense token-level supervision on student-generated rollouts, yet their objectives do not explicitly prioritize reasoning signals most critical to cross-lingual transfer. We characterize that target-language reasoning comprises the generation of both surface text and reasoning pivots, which are decisions that advance or redirect the reasoning process and shape subsequent inference. This motivates concentrating privileged distillation around such pivots. We therefore propose RP-OPSD, Reasoning-Pivot-guided On-Policy Self-Distillation, using the distributional shift between matched teacher views with and without an English reference solution as an operational proxy to guide privileged distillation and reference anchoring. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks covering 17 languages and multiple difficulty levels show that our method outperforms strong multilingual reasoning baselines and OPSD variants. Further analysis reveals that RP-OPSD concentrates privileged distillation on reasoning-control and problem-condistioned state-update tokens, while downweighting it for tokens that mainly support surface realization. Our code is available at https://github.com/NJUNLP/RP-OPSD.

On-Policy Distillation (OPD) is emerging as a promising alternative to reinforcement learning for LLM post-training, yet its effectiveness in multilingual settings remains underexplored. We study OPD and its advanced variant, On-Policy Delta Distillation (OPD$^2$), for mathematical reasoning in English, Korean, and Japanese. OPD$^2$ improves OPD by using the probability gap between a post-trained teacher and its base model as the learning signal. Experiments with Qwen3 show that OPD$^2$ consistently outperforms the original OPD, with particularly strong improvements in Korean and Japanese, and generally narrows the English-Korean performance gap. We further find that English-only OPD can also increase performance for Korean and Japanese, but often shifts the responses toward English, highlighting the importance of multilingual data to preserving target-language responses.