Large Language Model Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, yet their internal mechanisms for handling reasoning-intensive tasks remain underexplored. To advance the understanding of model-internal processing mechanisms, we present an investigation of how LLMs perform arithmetic operations by examining internal mechanisms during task execution. Using early decoding, we trace how next-token predictions are constructed across layers. Our experiments reveal that while the models recognize arithmetic tasks early, correct result generation occurs only in the final layers. Notably, models proficient in arithmetic exhibit a clear division of labor between attention and MLP modules, where attention propagates input information and MLP modules aggregate it. This division is absent in less proficient models. Furthermore, successful models appear to process more challenging arithmetic tasks functionally, suggesting reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall.

Most ATP benchmarks embed the final answer within the formal statement -- a convention we call "Easy Mode" -- a design that simplifies the task relative to what human competitors face and may lead to optimistic estimates of model capability. We call the stricter, more realistic setting "Hard Mode": the system must independently discover the answer before constructing a formal proof. To enable Hard Mode research, we make two contributions. First, we release MiniF2F-Hard and FIMO-Hard, expert-reannotated Hard Mode variants of two widely-used ATP benchmarks. Second, we introduce Discover And Prove (DAP), an agentic framework that uses LLM natural-language reasoning with explicit self-reflection to discover answers, then rewrites Hard Mode statements into Easy Mode ones for existing ATP provers. DAP sets the state of the art: on CombiBench it raises solved problems from 7 (previous SOTA, Pass@16) to 10; on PutnamBench it is the first system to formally prove 36 theorems in Hard Mode -- while simultaneously revealing that state-of-the-art LLMs exceed 80% answer accuracy on the same problems where formal provers manage under 10%, exposing a substantial gap that Hard Mode benchmarks are uniquely suited to measure.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed how humans access information, but not how we reason with it. Their fluency accelerates consumption while bypassing the slow, reflective processes that underpin sound judgment. This paper introduces Relational Reflective Intelligence (RRI), an inference-time governance layer that operationalizes reflection through auditable reasoning loops. RRI operates not inside the model but around it, providing a practical structure for stable, auditable reasoning between humans and LLMs. The core premise is that LLMs inherit cognitive vulnerabilities similar to those that shape human thought: reliance on intuitive shortcuts, confusion between representation and reality, and a preference for coherence over falsification. When humans and models share these tendencies, their errors compound. We refer to this as relational drift, a failure that arises from interaction rather than from the model alone. Addressing this requires a shift from modeling relations between words to structuring relations between model outputs and human reasoning. RRI provides this missing layer through three components: the Rose-Frame, which identifies likely breakdowns in reasoning; the Architect's Pen, which introduces targeted reflection steps at critical moments; and an inference-time workflow that embeds these steps without retraining the model. Together, these elements transform human-AI interaction into a joint reasoning system with explicit checkpoints, conflict surfacing, and an auditable trail of assumptions. Rather than making machines think like humans or forcing humans to reason like machines, RRI creates a structured interaction in which both compensate for each other's limitations. It reframes AI safety as a cognitive architecture problem, where reliable decisions depend on embedding reflection directly into the interaction process.

This position paper argues that large language model (LLM) reasoning should be studied as latent-state trajectory formation rather than as faithful surface chain-of-thought (CoT). This matters because claims about faithfulness, interpretability, reasoning benchmarks, and inference-time intervention all depend on what the field takes the primary object of reasoning to be. We ask what that object should be once three often-confounded factors are separated and formalize three competing hypotheses: H1, reasoning is primarily mediated by latent-state trajectories; H2, reasoning is primarily mediated by explicit surface CoT; and H0, most apparent reasoning gains are better explained by generic serial compute than by any privileged representational object. Reorganizing recent empirical, mechanistic, and survey work under this framework, and adding compute-audited worked exemplars that factorize surface traces, latent interventions, and matched budget expansions, we find that current evidence most strongly supports H1 as a default working hypothesis rather than as a task-independent verdict. We therefore make two recommendations: the field should treat latent-state dynamics as the default object of study for LLM reasoning, and it should evaluate reasoning with designs that explicitly disentangle surface traces, latent states, and serial compute.

Current large language models reason in isolation. Although it is common to sample multiple reasoning paths in parallel, these trajectories do not interact, and often fail in the same redundant ways. We introduce LACE, a framework that transforms reasoning from a collection of independent trials into a coordinated, parallel process. By repurposing the model architecture to enable cross-thread attention, LACE allows concurrent reasoning paths to share intermediate insights and correct one another during inference. A central challenge is the absence of natural training data that exhibits such collaborative behavior. We address this gap with a synthetic data pipeline that explicitly teaches models to communicate and error-correct across threads. Experiments show that this unified exploration substantially outperforms standard parallel search, improving reasoning accuracy by over 7 points. Our results suggest that large language models can be more effective when parallel reasoning paths are allowed to interact.

Large language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making in areas such as healthcare, law, finance, engineering, and government. Yet they share a critical limitation: they produce fluent outputs even when their internal reasoning has drifted. A confident answer can conceal uncertainty, speculation, or inconsistency, and small changes in phrasing can lead to different conclusions. This makes LLMs useful assistants but unreliable partners in high-stakes contexts. Humans exhibit a similar weakness, often mistaking fluency for reliability. When a model responds smoothly, users tend to trust it, even when both model and user are drifting together. This paper is the first in a five-paper research series on stabilising human-AI reasoning. The series proposes a two-layer approach: Parts II-IV introduce human-side mechanisms such as uncertainty cues, conflict surfacing, and auditable reasoning traces, while Part V develops a model-side Epistemic Control Loop (ECL) that detects instability and modulates generation accordingly. Together, these layers form a missing operational substrate for governance by increasing signal-to-noise at the point of use. Stabilising interaction makes uncertainty and drift visible before enforcement is applied, enabling more precise capability governance. This aligns with emerging compliance expectations, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001, by making reasoning processes traceable under real conditions of use. The central claim is that fluency is not reliability. Without structures that stabilise both human and model reasoning, AI cannot be trusted or governed where it matters most.

Test-time compute scaling, the practice of spending extra computation during inference via repeated sampling, search, or extended reasoning, has become a powerful lever for improving large language model performance. Yet deploying these techniques under finite inference budgets requires a decision that current systems largely ignore: which inputs deserve more compute, and which can be answered cheaply? We formalize this as a constrained optimization problem (maximize expected accuracy subject to an average compute budget) and solve it with a two-stage Solve-then-Learn pipeline. In the solve stage, Lagrangian relaxation decomposes the global constraint into per-instance sub-problems, each admitting a closed-form oracle action that optimally prices accuracy against cost. We prove that the induced cost is monotone in the dual variable, enabling exact budget targeting via binary search. In the learn stage, a lightweight classifier is trained to predict oracle actions from cheap input features, amortizing the allocation rule for real-time deployment. We establish that the task-level regret of the learned policy is bounded by its imitation error times the worst-case per-instance gap, yielding a clean reduction from constrained inference to supervised classification. Experiments on MATH and GSM8K with three LLMs (DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4o-mini, Qwen2.5-7B) show that our method consistently outperforms uniform and heuristic allocation baselines, achieving up to 12.8% relative accuracy improvement on MATH under matched budget constraints, while closely tracking the Lagrangian oracle upper bound with over 91% imitation accuracy.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong mathematical reasoning when trained on high-quality Chain-of-Thought (CoT) that articulates intermediate steps, yet costly CoT curation hinders further progress. While existing remedies such as distillation from stronger LLMs and self-synthesis based on test-time search alleviate this issue, they often suffer from diminishing returns or high computing overhead.In this work, we propose CoTEvol, a genetic evolutionary framework that casts CoT generation as a population-based search over reasoning trajectories.Candidate trajectories are iteratively evolved through reflective global crossover at the trajectory level and local mutation guided by uncertainty at the step level, enabling holistic recombination and fine-grained refinement. Lightweight, task-aware fitness functions are designed to guide the evolutionary process toward accurate and diverse reasoning. Empirically, CoTEvol improves correct-CoT synthesis success by over 30% and enhances structural diversity, with markedly improved efficiency. LLMs trained on these evolutionary CoT data achieve an average gain of 6.6% across eight math benchmarks, outperforming previous distillation and self-synthesis approaches. These results underscore the promise of evolutionary CoT synthesis as a scalable and effective method for mathematical reasoning tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance through extended inference-time deliberation, yet how their reasoning failures arise remains poorly understood. By analyzing model-generated reasoning trajectories, we find that errors are not uniformly distributed but often originate from a small number of early transition points, after which reasoning remains locally coherent but globally incorrect. These transitions coincide with localized spikes in token-level entropy, and alternative continuations from the same intermediate state can still lead to correct solutions. Based on these observations, we introduce GUARD, a targeted inference-time framework that probes and redirects critical transitions using uncertainty signals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks confirm that interventions guided by these failure dynamics lead to more reliable reasoning outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding when and how reasoning first deviates, complementing existing approaches that focus on scaling inference-time computation.

Large language models frequently produce mutually inconsistent answers when reasoning over multiple related queries. We study case-file logical consistency: maintaining a globally satisfiable belief state across interdependent queries. We introduce a benchmark of 390 multi-query reasoning instances with entailment/contradiction/unknown labels and propose set-level metrics including Case Satisfiability Rate, Contradiction Density and Revision Cost. Our solver-augmented approach extracts commitments, verifies global satisfiability and performs counterexample-guided repair. Across four reasoning domains, our method substantially reduces cross-query contradictions (SetCons: 0.56 to 0.94) while preserving per-query accuracy, demonstrating that global coherence is critical for robust multi-query reasoning.

Professional fact-checkers rely on domain knowledge and deep contextual understanding to verify claims. Large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) lack such grounding and primarily reason from available evidence alone, creating a mismatch between expert-led and fully automated claim verification. To mitigate this gap, we posit human-AI collaboration as a more promising path forward, where expert feedback, grounded in real-world knowledge and domain expertise, guides the model's reasoning. However, existing LRMs are hard to calibrate to natural language feedback, particularly in a multi-turn interaction setup. We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification. We introduce a new interaction paradigm that treats the model's thinking trace as a shared scratchpad. Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace, sidestepping the shortcomings of dialogue-based interaction. We provide theoretical results showing that trace-editing offers advantages over multi-turn dialogue, and our automatic evaluations demonstrate that Co-FactChecker outperforms existing autonomous and human-AI collaboration approaches. Human evaluations further show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue, producing higher quality reasoning and verdicts along with relatively easier to interpret and more useful thinking traces.

Mechanisms for continued self-improvement of language models without external supervision remain an open challenge. We propose Peer-Predictive Self-Training (PST), a label-free fine-tuning framework in which multiple language models improve collaboratively by using a cross-model aggregate response as an internal training signal. Given a prompt, models generate responses sequentially; the final aggregated answer, which is often more reliable than individual responses in practice, serves as an internal reference for learning. We measure how informative each intermediate response is about the aggregate using pointwise mutual information (PMI), and use this signal to scale self-training updates: responses already aligned with the aggregate receive smaller updates, while less informative or misaligned responses receive larger ones. On mathematical reasoning benchmarks, including SimulEq, MATH-500-Numeric, and MultiArith, PST improves exact-match accuracy by 2.2--4.3 percentage points across Gemma-2-2B, LLaMA-3.2-1B, and Qwen2.5-1.5B, and reduces the average generator--verifier gap (GV-Gap) by 26--40%, while requiring no external supervision, no teacher--student hierarchy, and only cross-model interactions. These results suggest that peer-predictive feedback from cross-model generations can provide an effective mechanism for self-supervised language-model improvement.

Do large language models (LLMs) think? Daniel Stoljar and Zhihe Vincent Zhang have recently developed an argument from rationality for the claim that LLMs do not think. We contend, however, that the argument from rationality not only falters, but leaves open an intriguing possibility: that LLMs engage only in arational, associative forms of thinking, and have purely associative minds. Our positive claim is that if LLMs think at all, they likely think precisely in this manner.

Acute poly-substance intoxication requires rapid, life-saving decisions under substantial uncertainty, as clinicians must rely on incomplete ingestion details and nonspecific symptoms. Effective diagnostic reasoning in this chaotic environment requires fusing unstructured, non-medical narratives (e.g. paramedic scene descriptions and unreliable patient self-reports or known histories), with structured medical data like vital signs. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for processing such heterogeneous inputs, they struggle in this setting, often underperforming simple baselines that rely solely on patient histories. To address this, we present DeToxR (Decision-support for Toxicology with Reasoning), the first adaptation of Reinforcement Learning (RL) to emergency toxicology. We design a robust data-fusion engine for multi-label prediction across 14 substance classes based on an LLM finetuned with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We optimize the model's reasoning directly using a clinical performance reward. By formulating a multi-label agreement metric as the reward signal, the model is explicitly penalized for missing co-ingested substances and hallucinating absent poisons. Our model significantly outperforms its unadapted base LLM counterpart and supervised baselines. Furthermore, in a preliminary clinical validation study, the model indicates a clinical advantage by achieving higher micro-F1 (0.644 vs 0.473) and recall in identifying the correct poisons. These results demonstrate the potential of RL-aligned LLMs to synthesize unstructured pre-clinical narratives and structured medical data for decision support in high-stakes environments.

Recent work provides overwhelming evidence that LLMs, even those trained to scale their reasoning trace, quickly deteriorate at planning as problems become more complex. LLM-as-Formalizers aim to address this by employing LLMs as a bridge to translate natural language descriptions into structured planning representations such as PDDL, which are then fed to a programmatic solver. We observe that its success may be overstated because planning problem descriptions in standard benchmarks often have a one-to-one mapping to PDDL, which departs from real use cases. To address this, we introduce the notion of unraveling problems where a natural yet succinct description translates into a very large PDDL representation. Using unraveling variants of four standard planning domains, we demonstrate that LLM Formalizers also do not always scale. We tackle this challenge by introducing a new paradigm, LLM-as-Higher-Order-Formalizer, where the LLM generates a high-level program that captures the recurrent logic within the description and in turn generates the larger PDDL representation. This decouples token output from the combinatorial explosion of the underlying formalization and search space, leading to improved performance for complex problems.

Epistemic reasoning requires agents to infer the state of the world from partial observations and information about other agents' knowledge. Prior work evaluating LLMs on epistemic puzzles often frames failures as memorization rather than reasoning. We argue that this dichotomy is too coarse for newer models: memorization is a limiting case of pattern-based reasoning, where a model matches a task to a familiar template and applies the corresponding solution. We introduce a two-dimensional benchmark over DEL-style puzzles, separating narrative familiarity from inference complexity, allowing us to distinguish pattern-based from epistemic reasoning. We find that models are substantially more robust to surface form changes than prior work suggested, yet consistently struggle in asymmetric settings where familiar patterns no longer apply and success requires tracking fragmented epistemic states.

Retrosynthesis prediction aims to identify reactants that can synthesize a given product molecule. Although molecular large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promising results, most existing methods either generate reactants directly or provide only generic product-level analysis, without explicitly reasoning about bond-disconnection strategies that justify specific reactant choices. This paper proposes RetroReasoner, a retrosynthetic reasoning model that captures chemists' strategic disconnection-based thinking. RetroReasoner is trained with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. For supervised fine-tuning, SyntheticRetro generates structured disconnection rationales paired with reactant predictions. For reinforcement learning, a round-trip reward evaluates predicted reactants by passing them through a forward synthesis model and rewarding predictions that reconstruct the original product. RetroReasoner can also be applied to multi-step retrosynthetic planning by incorporating it into a parallelized Monte Carlo tree search framework, reducing search time while increasing the number and diversity of valid synthetic pathways. Experimental results show that RetroReasoner outperforms prior baselines, including not only molecular LLMs but also retrosynthesis-specific expert models, and generates a broader range of feasible reactant proposals, especially for challenging reaction instances. The code is available at https://github.com/KU-AGI/RetroReasoner.

Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance through chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet they often generate unnecessarily long reasoning paths that incur high inference cost. Self-consistency-based approaches push accuracy higher still, but they require sampling and aggregating multiple reasoning trajectories, leading to substantial computational overhead. In this paper, we introduce a confidence-aware selective sampling framework that, at inference time, analyzes a single reasoning trajectory to adaptively determine whether to rely on that trajectory alone or trigger multi-path sampling. The framework uses trajectory-level numeric features and sentence-level linguistic features extracted from reasoning states to guide selective multi-path reasoning. We train it on MedQA and evaluate it in-domain on MedQA and under calibration-only transfer on MathQA, MedMCQA, and MMLU, without further fine-tuning. Experimental results show that the proposed framework maintains comparable performance to full and efficient multi-path reasoning baselines, with accuracy changes of $-0.41 \pm 0.58$ and $-0.31 \pm 0.58$ percentage points, respectively, while reducing token usage by $71.7 \pm 5.0$ and $36.6 \pm 9.1$. These findings demonstrate that reasoning trajectories contain rich signals for uncertainty estimation, enabling a simple, transferable mechanism to balance accuracy and efficiency in LLM reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong complex reasoning capabilities through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, their reasoning patterns remain too complicated to analyze. While Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as a powerful tool for interpretability, existing approaches predominantly operate at the token level, creating a granularity mismatch when capturing more critical step-level information, such as reasoning direction and semantic transitions. In this work, we propose step-level sparse autoencoder (SSAE), which serves as an analytical tool to disentangle different aspects of LLMs' reasoning steps into sparse features. Specifically, by precisely controlling the sparsity of a step feature conditioned on its context, we form an information bottleneck in step reconstruction, which splits incremental information from background information and disentangles it into several sparsely activated dimensions. Experiments on multiple base models and reasoning tasks show the effectiveness of the extracted features. By linear probing, we can easily predict surface-level information, such as generation length and first token distribution, as well as more complicated properties, such as the correctness and logicality of the step. These observations indicate that LLMs should already at least partly know about these properties during generation, which provides the foundation for the self-verification ability of LLMs. Our code is available at https://github.com/Miaow-Lab/SSAE.

Large language models (LLMs) display a unified "general factor" of capability across 10 benchmarks (a finding confirmed by our factor analysis of 156 models), yet they still struggle with simple, trivial tasks for humans. This is because current benchmarks focus on task completion, failing to probe the foundational cognitive abilities that highlight these behaviors. We address this by introducing the NeuroCognition benchmark, grounded in three adapted neuropsychological tests targeting distinct foundational cognitive components: Raven's Progressive Matrices (abstract relational reasoning), Spatial Working Memory (goal-directed spatial updating), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (cognitive flexibility). Our evaluation reveals that while models perform strongly on text, their performance degrades for images and with increased complexity. Comparison with a human baseline shows that LLMs and humans fail at different parts of the same tasks. Furthermore, we observe that complex reasoning is not universally beneficial, whereas simple, human-like strategies yield partial gains. We also find that NeuroCognition correlates positively with standard general-capability benchmarks, while still measuring distinct cognitive abilities beyond them. Overall, NeuroCognition emphasizes where current LLMs align with human-like intelligence and where they lack core adaptive cognition, showing the potential to serve as a verifiable, scalable source for improving LLMs.

Modern language models reason within bounded context, an inherent constraint that poses a fundamental barrier to long-horizon reasoning. We identify recursion as a core principle for overcoming this barrier, and propose recursive models as a minimal realization, where the model can recursively invoke itself to solve subtasks in isolated contexts. We prove that any computable problem admits a recursive decomposition of reasoning in which each subtask requires only exponentially smaller active context than standard autoregressive models; this strictly surpasses any context management approach confined to a single sequence, such as summarization. We further generalize our framework to modern agentic systems with arbitrary context processing and control flows, and prove that recursive models can achieve optimal power within this broader class. Experimentally, we test two settings: fine-tuning a pretrained base model for recursive SAT solving, and training a small model from scratch on Go traces generated by exact game-tree search. Both show improved long-horizon accuracy with small active contexts.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has shifted time series analysis from narrow analytics to general-purpose reasoning. Yet, existing benchmarks cover only a small set of health time series modalities and tasks, failing to reflect the diverse domains and extensive temporal dependencies inherent in real-world physiological modeling. To bridge these gaps, we introduce HEARTS (Health Reasoning over Time Series), a unified benchmark for evaluating hierarchical reasoning capabilities of LLMs over general health time series. HEARTS integrates 16 real-world datasets across 12 health domains and 20 signal modalities, and defines a comprehensive taxonomy of 110 tasks grouped into four core capabilities: Perception, Inference, Generation, and Deduction. Evaluating 16 state-of-the-art LLMs on more than 20K test samples reveals intriguing findings. First, LLMs substantially underperform specialized models, and their performance is only weakly related to general reasoning scores. Moreover, LLMs often rely on simple heuristics and struggle with multi-step temporal reasoning. Finally, performance declines with increasing temporal complexity, with similar failure modes within model families, indicating that scaling alone is insufficient. By making these gaps measurable, HEARTS provides a standardized testbed and living benchmark for developing next-generation LLM agents capable of reasoning over diverse health signals.

As large language models (LLMs) witness increasing deployment in complex, high-stakes decision-making scenarios, it becomes imperative to ground their reasoning in causality rather than spurious correlations. However, strong performance on traditional reasoning benchmarks does not guarantee true causal reasoning ability of LLMs, as high accuracy may still arise from memorizing semantic patterns instead of analyzing the underlying true causal structures. To bridge this critical gap, we propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, designed to encourage the development of new LLM paradigm or training algorithms that ground LLM reasoning in causality rather than semantic correlation. CausalFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations. Based on this, for each event triple, we construct pairs of semantically similar questions that reuse the same events but yield opposite causal answers, where models that rely heavily on semantic matching are systematically driven toward incorrect predictions. To further probe models' reliance on semantic patterns, we introduce a noisy-prefix evaluation that prepends causally irrelevant text before intermediate causal reasoning steps without altering the underlying causal relations or the logic of the reasoning process. We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach that aims to mitigate explicit reliance on correlation in the reasoning process. Our results show that explicit CoT can still be misled by spurious semantic correlations, where internalizing reasoning steps yields substantially improved causal grounding, suggesting that it is promising to better elicit the latent causal reasoning capabilities of base LLMs.

Language models exhibit fundamental limitations -- hallucination, brittleness, and lack of formal grounding -- that are particularly problematic in high-stakes specialist fields requiring verifiable reasoning. I investigate whether formal domain ontologies can enhance language model reliability through retrieval-augmented generation. Using mathematics as proof of concept, I implement a neuro-symbolic pipeline leveraging the OpenMath ontology with hybrid retrieval and cross-encoder reranking to inject relevant definitions into model prompts. Evaluation on the MATH benchmark with three open-source models reveals that ontology-guided context improves performance when retrieval quality is high, but irrelevant context actively degrades it -- highlighting both the promise and challenges of neuro-symbolic approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) plays a key role in stimulating the explicit reasoning capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). We can achieve expert-level performance in some specific domains via RLVR, such as coding or math. When a general multi-domain expert-level model is required, we need to carefully consider the collaboration of RLVR across different domains. The current state-of-the-art models mainly employ two different training paradigms for multi-domain RLVR: mixed multi-task RLVR and separate RLVR followed by model merging. However, most of the works did not provide a detailed comparison and analysis about these paradigms. To this end, we choose multiple commonly used high-level tasks (e.g., math, coding, science, instruction following, and agent) as our target domains and design extensive qualitative and quantitative experiments using open-source datasets. We find the RLVR across domains exhibits small mutual interferences, and reasoning-intensive domains have mutually synergistic effects. Furthermore, we analyze the internal mechanisms from the perspectives of information constraints, model prediction behavior and self-verification. Our homepage is at https://github.com/Mosi-AI/M2RL.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general-purpose reasoning capabilities, yet they frequently hallucinate when used as world models (WMs), where strict compliance with deterministic transition rules--particularly in corner cases--is essential. In contrast, Symbolic WMs provide logical consistency but lack semantic expressivity. To bridge this gap, we propose Neuro-Symbolic Synergy (NeSyS), a framework that integrates the probabilistic semantic priors of LLMs with executable symbolic rules to achieve both expressivity and robustness. NeSyS alternates training between the two models using trajectories inadequately explained by the other. Unlike rule-based prompting, the symbolic WM contributes candidate-level scores through log-linear reranking, without requiring the LLM to interpret rule text. Rule-guided sampling prioritizes transitions that are weakly covered by symbolic rules, using 35--60% of the training pairs while outperforming full-data supervised fine-tuning in five of six settings. Experiments on ScienceWorld, WebShop, and PlanCraft demonstrate consistent gains in WM prediction accuracy and data efficiency; one-step lookahead on open-ended WebShop also improves agent reward. Our models, rules, and code are available at https://github.com/tianyi-lab/NeSyS.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning is a key mechanism for improvement, but its effectiveness is fundamentally governed by reward design. Despite its importance, the relationship between reward modeling and core LLM challenges--such as evaluation bias, hallucination, distribution shift, and efficient learning--remains poorly understood. This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment, shaping what models learn, how they generalize, and whether their outputs can be trusted. We introduce Reasoning-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a reasoning-centric taxonomic perspective that organizes diverse reward paradigms for multi-step reasoning. Within this perspective, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges ranging from inference-time scaling to hallucination mitigation. We further critically evaluate existing benchmarks, highlighting vulnerabilities such as data contamination and reward misalignment, and outline directions for more robust evaluation. By integrating fragmented research threads and clarifying the interplay between reward design and fundamental reasoning capabilities, this work provides a foundational roadmap for building reasoning models that are robust, verifiable, and trustworthy.

Process rewards have been widely used in deep reinforcement learning to improve training efficiency, reduce variance, and prevent reward hacking. In LLM reasoning, existing works also explore various solutions for learning effective process reward models (PRM) with or without the help of an expert policy. However, existing methods either rely on strong assumptions about the expert policies (e.g., requiring their reward functions) or suffer intrinsic limitations (e.g., entropy collapse), resulting in weak PRMs or limited generalizability. In this paper, we introduce rePIRL, an inverse RL-inspired framework that learns effective PRMs with minimal assumptions about expert policies. Specifically, we design a dual learning process that updates the policy and the PRM interchangeably. Our learning algorithm has customized techniques to address the challenges of scaling traditional inverse RL to LLMs. We theoretically show that our proposed learning framework can unify both online and offline PRM learning methods, justifying that rePIRL can learn PRMs with minimal assumptions. Empirical evaluations on standardized math and coding reasoning datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of rePIRL over existing methods. We further show the application of our trained PRM in test-time training, test-time scaling, and providing an early signal for training hard problems. Finally, we validate our training recipe and key design choices via a detailed ablation study.

Recent studies increasingly explore Large Language Models (LLMs) as a new paradigm for recommendation systems due to their scalability and world knowledge. However, existing work has three key limitations: (1) most efforts focus on retrieval and ranking, while the reranking phase, critical for refining final recommendations, is largely overlooked; (2) LLMs are typically used in zero-shot or supervised fine-tuning settings, leaving their reasoning abilities, especially those enhanced through reinforcement learning (RL) and high-quality reasoning data, underexploited; (3) items are commonly represented by non-semantic IDs, creating major scalability challenges in industrial systems with billions of identifiers. To address these gaps, we propose the Generative Reasoning Reranker (GR2), an end-to-end framework with a three-stage training pipeline tailored for reranking. First, a pretrained LLM is mid-trained on semantic IDs encoded from non-semantic IDs via a tokenizer achieving $\ge$99% uniqueness. Next, a stronger larger-scale LLM generates high-quality reasoning traces through carefully designed prompting and rejection sampling, which are used for supervised fine-tuning to impart foundational reasoning skills. Finally, we apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic sAmpling Policy Optimization (DAPO), enabling scalable RL supervision with verifiable rewards designed specifically for reranking. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate GR2's effectiveness: it surpasses the state-of-the-art OneRec-Think by 2.4% in Recall@5 and 1.3% in NDCG@5. Ablations confirm that advanced reasoning traces yield substantial gains across metrics. We further find that RL reward design is crucial in reranking: LLMs tend to exploit reward hacking by preserving item order, motivating conditional verifiable rewards to mitigate this behavior and optimize reranking performance.

From generating headlines to fabricating news, the Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically assessed by their final outputs, under the safety assumption that a refusal response signifies safe reasoning throughout the entire process. Challenging this assumption, our study reveals that during fake news generation, even when a model rejects a harmful request, its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning may still internally contain and propagate unsafe narratives. To analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a unified safety-analysis framework that systematically deconstructs CoT generation across model layers and evaluates the role of individual attention heads through Jacobian-based spectral metrics. Within this framework, we introduce three interpretable measures: stability, geometry, and energy to quantify how specific attention heads respond or embed deceptive reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning-oriented LLMs show that the generation risk rises significantly when the thinking mode is activated, where the critical routing decisions are concentrated in only a few contiguous mid-depth layers. By precisely identifying the attention heads responsible for this divergence, our work challenges the assumption that refusal implies safety and provides a new understanding perspective for mitigating latent reasoning risks.

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with complex, long-horizon reasoning due to instability caused by their frozen policy assumption. Current test-time scaling methods treat execution feedback merely as an external signal for filtering or rewriting trajectories, without internalizing it to improve the underlying reasoning strategy. Inspired by Popper's epistemology of "conjectures and refutations," we argue that intelligence requires real-time evolution of the model's policy through learning from failed attempts. We introduce Policy of Thoughts (PoT), a framework that recasts reasoning as a within-instance online optimization process. PoT first generates diverse candidate solutions via an efficient exploration mechanism, then uses Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to update a transient LoRA adapter based on execution feedback. This closed-loop design enables dynamic, instance-specific refinement of the model's reasoning priors. Experiments show that PoT dramatically boosts performance: a 4B model achieves 49.71% accuracy on LiveCodeBench, outperforming GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 despite being over 50 smaller.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit failure modes on seemingly trivial tasks. We propose a formalisation of LLM interaction using a deterministic multi-tape Turing machine, where each tape represents a distinct component: input characters, tokens, vocabulary, model parameters, activations, probability distributions, and output text. The model enables precise localisation of failure modes to specific pipeline stages, revealing, e.g., how tokenisation obscures character-level structure needed for counting tasks. The model clarifies why techniques like chain-of-thought prompting help, by externalising computation on the output tape, while also revealing their fundamental limitations. This approach provides a rigorous, falsifiable alternative to geometric metaphors and complements empirical scaling laws with principled error analysis.

Determining whether a program terminates is a central problem in computer science. Turing's Halting Problem established termination as undecidable, showing that no algorithm can universally determine termination for all programs and inputs. Hence, verification tools approximate termination, sometimes failing to prove or disprove; these tools rely on problem-specific architectures and are usually tied to particular programming languages. Recent advances in LLMs raise a natural question: To what extent can they reason about program termination? We evaluate frontier LLMs on a diverse set of C programs from the International Competition on Software Verification (SV-Comp) 2025. Our results show that GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet-4.5 achieve scores comparable to top-ranked verification tools (with test-time scaling). However, while models often correctly infer whether programs terminate, they frequently fail to construct a witness as formal proof, revealing a gap between semantic recognition and symbolic proof generation. Performance further degrades as code length increases. Beyond witness automaton graphs, we introduce a divergence-precondition formulation that characterizes non-termination conditions as logical constraints. We hope these findings motivate future research on real-world termination benchmarks, neuro-symbolic approaches that combine LLMs with symbolic verification methods, and, more broadly, LLM reasoning on other undecidable problems.

Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process underlying inference, problem-solving, and decision-making. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities in closed-world settings, they struggle in open-ended and dynamic environments. Agentic reasoning marks a paradigm shift by reframing LLMs as autonomous agents that plan, act, and learn through continual interaction. In this survey, we organize agentic reasoning along three complementary dimensions. First, we characterize environmental dynamics through three layers: foundational agentic reasoning, which establishes core single-agent capabilities including planning, tool use, and search in stable environments; self-evolving agentic reasoning, which studies how agents refine these capabilities through feedback, memory, and adaptation; and collective multi-agent reasoning, which extends intelligence to collaborative settings involving coordination, knowledge sharing, and shared goals. Across these layers, we distinguish in-context reasoning, which scales test-time interaction through structured orchestration, from post-training reasoning, which optimizes behaviors via reinforcement learning and supervised fine-tuning. We further review representative agentic reasoning frameworks across real-world applications and benchmarks, including science, robotics, healthcare, autonomous research, and mathematics. This survey synthesizes agentic reasoning methods into a unified roadmap bridging thought and action, and outlines open challenges and future directions, including personalization, long-horizon interaction, world modeling, scalable multi-agent training, and governance for real-world deployment.

Existing reinforcement learning methods for LLM reasoning implicitly assume that the policy generating training trajectories should coincide with the one producing inference responses. We argue that this is a misleading inductive bias: the optimization-optimal trajectory distribution favors informative gradients, whereas the inference-optimal response distribution emphasizes accuracy and consistency. Forcing both into a single policy entangles their gradients and suppresses exploration. We propose R$^2$PO (Residual Rollout Policy Optimization), which attaches a lightweight Residual Rollout-Head atop the policy to decouple training trajectories from inference responses, diversifying rollouts during training while keeping inference generation intact. Experiments show that R$^2$PO consistently outperforms baselines, with average accuracy gains of 3.4% on MATH-500 and 1.3% on APPS, alongside more diverse rollouts and reduced length bias. Our code is available at https://github.com/RRPO-ARR/Code.

Multi-constraint planning involves identifying, evaluating, and refining candidate plans while satisfying multiple, potentially conflicting constraints. Existing large language model (LLM) approaches face fundamental limitations in this domain. Pure reasoning paradigms, which rely on long natural language chains, are prone to inconsistency, error accumulation, and prohibitive cost as constraints compound. Conversely, LLMs combined with coding- or solver-based strategies lack flexibility: they often generate problem-specific code from scratch or depend on fixed solvers, failing to capture generalizable logic across diverse problems. To address these challenges, we introduce the Scalable COde Planning Engine (SCOPE), a framework that disentangles query-specific reasoning from generic code execution. By separating reasoning from execution, SCOPE produces solver functions that are consistent, deterministic, and reusable across queries while requiring only minimal changes to input parameters. SCOPE achieves state-of-the-art performance while lowering cost and latency. For example, with GPT-4o, it reaches 93.1% success on TravelPlanner, a 61.6% gain over the best baseline (CoT) while cutting inference cost by 1.4x and time by ~4.67x. Code is available at https://github.com/DerrickGXD/SCOPE.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in Text-Attributed Graph (TAG) understanding. Recent studies typically focus on verbalizing the graph structures via handcrafted prompts, feeding the target node and its neighborhood context into LLMs. However, constrained by the context window, existing methods mainly resort to random sampling, often implemented via dropping node/edge randomly, which inevitably introduces noise and cause reasoning instability. We argue that graphs inherently contain rich structural and semantic information, and that their effective exploitation can unlock potential gains in LLMs reasoning performance. To this end, we propose Homophily-aware Structural and Semantic Compression for LLMs (HS2C), a framework centered on exploiting graph homophily. Structurally, guided by the principle of Structural Entropy minimization, we perform a global hierarchical partition that decodes the graph's essential topology. This partition identifies naturally cohesive, homophilic communities, while discarding stochastic connectivity noise. Semantically, we deliver the detected structural homophily to the LLM, empowering it to perform differentiated semantic aggregation based on predefined community type. This process compresses redundant background contexts into concise community-level consensus, selectively preserving semantically homophilic information aligned with the target nodes. Extensive experiments on 10 node-level benchmarks across LLMs of varying sizes and families demonstrate that, by feeding LLMs with structurally and semantically compressed inputs, HS2C simultaneously enhances the compression rate and downstream inference accuracy, validating its superiority and scalability. Extensions to 7 diverse graph-level benchmarks further consolidate HS2C's task generalizability.

The real-world information sources are inherently multilingual, which naturally raises a question about whether language models can synthesize information across languages. In this paper, we introduce a simple two-hop question answering setting, where answering a question requires making inferences over two multilingual documents. We find that language models are more sensitive to language variation in answer-span documents than in those providing bridging information, despite the equal importance of both documents for answering a question. Under a step-by-step sub-question evaluation, we further show that in up to 33% of multilingual cases, models fail to infer the bridging information in the first step yet still answer the overall question correctly. This indicates that reasoning in language models, especially in multilingual settings, does not follow a faithful step-by-step decomposition. Subsequently, we show that the absence of reasoning decomposition leads to around 18% composition failure, where both sub-questions are answered correctly but fail for the final two-hop questions. To mitigate this, we propose a simple three-stage SUBQ prompting method to guide the multi-step reasoning with sub-questions, which boosts accuracy from 10.1% to 66.5%.

Signal decay and regime shifts pose recurring challenges for data-driven investment strategies in non-stationary markets, where conventional time-series and machine learning approaches often struggle to generalize beyond historical correlations. While large language models (LLMs) offer strong capabilities for processing unstructured information, their potential to support quantitative factor screening through explicit economic reasoning remains underexplored. Existing factor-based methods typically reduce alphas to numerical time series, overlooking the semantic rationale that determines when a factor is economically relevant. We present Alpha-R1, an RL-aligned LLM framework for context-aware alpha screening. Its core mechanism, semantic gating, evaluates each candidate factor's semantic profile against a dynamically constructed market state description, selecting a sparse subset of factors whose economic rationale aligns with current market conditions. The selection model is trained via group relative policy optimization (GRPO), using realized portfolio returns as the primary reward signal. Under a 12-month out-of-sample evaluation, Alpha-R1 achieves annualized returns of 47.87% on S&P 500 and 40.57% on CSI 300 with Sharpe ratios of 1.62 and 2.23. These results, obtained under a bounded candidate-pool evaluation protocol, provide evidence for second-stage semantic factor reranking in non-stationary markets. The full implementation and resources are available at https://github.com/FinStep-AI/Alpha-R1.

Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) challenges models to bridge the gap between natural language and strict knowledge graph schemas by generating executable logical forms. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced this field, current approaches often struggle with a dichotomy of failure: they either generate hallucinated queries without verifying schema existence or exhibit rigid, template-based reasoning that mimics synthesized traces without true comprehension of the environment. To address these limitations, we present \textbf{KBQA-R1}, a framework that shifts the paradigm from text imitation to interaction optimization via Reinforcement Learning. Treating KBQA as a multi-turn decision process, our model learns to navigate the knowledge base using a list of actions, leveraging Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to refine its strategies based on concrete execution feedback rather than static supervision. Furthermore, we introduce \textbf{Referenced Rejection Sampling (RRS)}, a data synthesis method that resolves cold-start challenges by strictly aligning reasoning traces with ground-truth action sequences. Extensive experiments on WebQSP, GrailQA, and GraphQuestions demonstrate that KBQA-R1 achieves state-of-the-art performance, effectively grounding LLM reasoning in verifiable execution.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have recently demonstrated strong potential in medical Question Answering (QA). Existing approaches are largely English-focused and primarily rely on distillation from general-purpose LLMs, raising concerns about the reliability of their medical knowledge. In this work, we present a method to generate multilingual reasoning traces based on medical knowledge extracted from Wikipedia. We produce 500k traces in English, Italian, and Spanish, using a retrieval-augmented generation approach over medical information from Wikipedia. The traces are generated to solve medical questions drawn from MedQA and MedMCQA, which we extend to Italian and Spanish. We test our pipeline in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings across Medical QA benchmarks, and demonstrate that our reasoning traces improve performance both when utilized via in-context learning (few-shot) and supervised fine-tuning, yielding state-of-the-art results among 8B-parameter LLMs. We believe that these resources can support the development of more transparent clinical decision-support tools in multilingual settings. We release the full suite of resources: reasoning traces, translated QA datasets, Medical-Wikipedia, and fine-tuned models.

Scaling inference-time computation has enabled Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve strong reasoning performance, but their inherently sequential decoding incurs substantial latency, motivating parallelization of the generation process. However, existing parallel reasoning approaches suffer from performance degradation compared to their sequential counterparts, and often rely on specialized inference engines. We introduce ThreadWeaver, a framework for adaptive parallel reasoning that matches the accuracy of comparably sized sequential reasoning models while significantly reducing inference latency via three key innovations: 1) a two-stage parallel trajectory generator that produces high-quality parallel chain-of-thought data for supervised fine-tuning; 2) a trie-based rollout design that enables parallel reasoning on any off-the-shelf autoregressive inference engine; and 3) a parallelization-aware reinforcement learning framework that trains the model to balance reasoning accuracy with effective parallelization. Across six challenging math reasoning benchmarks, ThreadWeaver trained on top of Qwen3-8B achieves performance on par with cutting-edge sequential reasoning models (79.9% on AIME24 and 71.9% on average) while delivering up to 1.53x speedup in token latency, establishing a new Pareto frontier between accuracy and efficiency.

While recent safety guardrails effectively suppress overtly biased outputs, subtler forms of social bias emerge during complex logical reasoning tasks that evade current evaluation benchmarks. To fill this gap, we introduce a new evaluation framework, PRIME (Puzzle Reasoning for Implicit Biases in Model Evaluation), that uses logic grid puzzles to systematically probe the influence of social stereotypes on logical reasoning and decision making in LLMs. Our use of logic puzzles enables automatic generation and verification, as well as variability in complexity and biased settings. PRIME includes stereotypical, anti-stereotypical, and neutral puzzle variants generated from a shared puzzle structure, allowing for controlled and fine-grained comparisons. We evaluate multiple model families across puzzle sizes and test the effectiveness of prompt-based mitigation strategies. Focusing our experiments on gender stereotypes, our findings highlight that models consistently reason more accurately when solutions align with stereotypical associations. This demonstrates the significance of PRIME for diagnosing and quantifying social biases perpetuated in the deductive reasoning of LLMs, where fairness is critical.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is often credited with improving language model reasoning at the expense of knowledge. We challenge this narrative by showing that reasoning models consistently outperform their instruction-tuned versions on pure knowledge recall tasks. These gains do not reflect newly acquired information, but rather an improved procedural skill in navigating and searching existing knowledge hierarchies within the model parameters. Structured prompting, which explicitly guides models through hierarchical traversal -- recovers most of the instruct-reasoning gap across five model families. A controlled RL experiment on unseen, non-extractable facts improves recall of held-out frequent but previously inaccessible facts, ruling out simple data exposure. On depth-stratified retrieval tasks, reasoning models exhibit superior traversal as retrieval depth grows. Layerwise activation analysis further shows that while factual representations maintain high cosine similarity between instruct and reasoning models, query representations diverge noticeably, indicating that reasoning primarily reshapes how models traverse knowledge rather than the knowledge representation itself. Finally, we find that distilled models often fail to match reasoning models on knowledge recall because they imitate self-correction without acquiring the exploratory behavior needed for hierarchical navigation. Together, these findings suggest that improving factual recall in LLMs depends not only on expanding what models know but also on teaching them to navigate it -- motivating future post-training methods that optimize traversal.

Modern LLMs are trained to "think" primarily via explicit text generation, such as chain-of-thought (CoT), which defers reasoning to post-training and under-leverages pre-training data. We present and open-source Ouro, named after the recursive Ouroboros, a family of pre-trained Looped Language Models (LoopLM) that instead build reasoning into the pre-training phase through (i) iterative computation in latent space, (ii) an entropy-regularized objective for learned depth allocation, and (iii) scaling to 7.7T tokens. Ouro 1.4B and 2.6B models enjoy superior performance that match the results of up to 12B SOTA LLMs across a wide range of benchmarks. Through controlled experiments, we show this advantage stems not from increased knowledge capacity, but from superior knowledge manipulation capabilities. We also show that LoopLM yields reasoning traces more aligned with final outputs than explicit CoT. We hope our results show the potential of LoopLM as a novel scaling direction in the reasoning era. Our model is available here: http://ouro-llm.github.io.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can propose rules in natural language, sidestepping the need for a predefined predicate space in traditional rule learning. Yet many LLM-based approaches ignore interactions among rules, and the opportunity to couple LLMs with probabilistic rule learning for robust inference remains underexplored. We present RLIE, a unified framework that integrates LLMs with probabilistic modeling to learn a set of weighted rules. RLIE has four stages: (1) Rule generation, where an LLM proposes and filters candidates; (2) Logistic regression, which learns probabilistic weights for global selection and calibration; (3) Iterative refinement, which updates the rule set using prediction errors; and (4) Evaluation, which compares the weighted rule set as a direct classifier with methods that inject rules into an LLM. We evaluate multiple inference strategies on real-world datasets. Applying rules directly with their learned weights yields superior performance, whereas prompting LLMs with the rules, weights, and logistic-model outputs surprisingly degrades accuracy. This supports the view that LLMs excel at semantic generation and interpretation but are less reliable for precise probabilistic integration. RLIE clarifies the potential and limitations of LLMs for inductive reasoning and couples them with classic probabilistic rule combination methods to enable more reliable neuro-symbolic reasoning.

Can language models improve their reasoning performance without external rewards, using only their own sampled responses for training? We show that they can. We propose Self-evolving Post-Training (SePT), a simple post-training method that alternates between self-generation and training on self-generated responses. It repeatedly samples questions, uses the model itself to generate responses under a specified sampling temperature, and then trains the model on the self-generated data. In this self-training loop, we use an online data refresh mechanism, where each new batch is generated by the most recently updated model. Across six math reasoning benchmarks, SePT improves a strong no-training baseline, defined as the untuned base model evaluated at its best swept decoding temperature, on several tested models. Additional ablations demonstrate the importance of online data refresh and temperature dynamics. Overall, our results identify a practical regime where reasoning can be improved using self-generated supervision alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/ElementQiii/SePT.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become a key driver for enhancing the long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, prevalent methods like GRPO often fail when task difficulty exceeds model capacity, leading to reward sparsity and inefficient training. Prior work attempts to mitigate this with off-policy data, but such methods often induce severe distributional mismatches that destabilize policy updates. In this work, we identify a core issue underlying these failures, which we term low training affinity, and introduce Affinity, the first quantitative metric for monitoring the compatibility between external guidance and the model's intrinsic policy. To address this, we propose HINT, an adaptive framework designed to enhance reasoning capabilities while explicitly preserving high Affinity. First, instead of revealing partial answers, HINT supplies Meta-Hints, which act as abstract cognitive scaffolding to guide the model in articulating solutions independently. Second, to ensure stability, we integrate Affinity-Aware Policy Optimization (AAPO), which dynamically modulates the learning objective based on the Affinity. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that HINT consistently outperforms strong baselines, while exhibiting superior stability and robust generalization to out-of-distribution tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/ViviqwerAsd/HINT.

Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) are promising alternatives to autoregressive large language models (AR-LLMs), as they potentially allow higher inference throughput. Reinforcement learning (RL) is crucial to enabling dLLMs to achieve performance comparable to that of AR-LLMs on important tasks, such as reasoning. However, RL algorithms well-suited to dLLMs' unique characteristics have yet to be developed. This paper proposes Distribution Matching Policy Optimization (DMPO), a principled and theoretically grounded RL fine-tuning method specifically designed to enhance the reasoning capabilities of dLLMs by matching the dLLM policy distribution to the optimal, reward-tilted one through cross-entropy optimization. We identify a key implementation challenge with small training batch sizes and propose several effective solutions based on a novel weight baseline subtraction technique. DMPO exhibits superior performance on multiple reasoning benchmarks without supervised fine-tuning, achieving up to a $39.63$ percentage-point improvement in accuracy over prior non-DMPO RL baselines and $67.97$ percentage points over the base model, underscoring the effectiveness of the distribution-matching framework. Our code is available at https://github.com/yuchen-zhu-zyc/DMPO.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a widely adopted technique for enhancing the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the effectiveness of RLVR strongly depends on the capability of base models. This issue arises because it requires the model to have sufficient capability to perform high-quality exploration, which involves both effectiveness and diversity. Unfortunately, existing methods address this issue by imitating expert trajectories, which improve effectiveness but neglect diversity. To address this, we argue that the expert only needs to provide guidance only at critical decision points rather than the entire reasoning path. Based on this insight, we propose MENTOR: Mixed-policy Expert Navigation for Token-level Optimization of Reasoning, a framework that provides expert guidance only at critical decision points to perform effective and diverse exploration in RLVR. Extensive experiments show that MENTOR enables models capture the essence of expert strategies rather than surface imitation, thereby performing high-quality exploration and achieving superior overall performance. Our code is available online.

Existing multi-agent learning approaches have developed interactive training environments to explicitly promote collaboration among multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), thereby constructing stronger multi-agent systems (MAS). However, during inference, they require re-executing the MAS to obtain final solutions, which diverges from human cognition that individuals can enhance their reasoning capabilities through interactions with others and resolve questions independently in the future. To investigate whether multi-agent interaction can enhance LLMs' independent problem-solving ability, we introduce ILR, a novel co-learning framework for MAS that integrates two key components: Dynamic Interaction and Perception Calibration. Specifically, Dynamic Interaction first adaptively selects either cooperative or competitive strategies depending on question difficulty and model ability. LLMs then exchange information through Idea3, an innovative interaction paradigm designed to mimic human discussion, before deriving their respective final answers. In Perception Calibration, ILR employs Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to train LLMs while integrating one LLM's reward distribution characteristics into another's reward function, thereby enhancing the cohesion of multi-agent interactions. We evaluate the effectiveness of ILR across three LLMs from two model families of varying scales on five mathematical, one coding, one general question answering, and one scientific reasoning benchmarks. Experimental results show that ILR consistently outperforms single-agent learning, yielding an improvement of up to 5% over the strongest baseline. We further discover that Idea3 can enhance the robustness of stronger LLMs during multi-agent inference, and dynamic interaction types can boost multi-agent learning compared to pure cooperative or competitive strategies.

Given the prohibitive cost of pre-training large language models, it is essential to leverage smaller proxy models to optimize datasets before scaling up. However, this approach becomes challenging for reasoning capabilities, which exhibit emergent behavior that only appear reliably at larger model sizes, often exceeding 7B parameters. To address this, we introduce rBridge, showing that small proxies ($\leq$1B) can effectively predict large-model reasoning by aligning more closely with (1) the pre-training objective and (2) the target task. rBridge achieves this by weighting negative log-likelihood with task alignment, using reasoning traces from frontier models as gold labels. In our experiments, rBridge (i) reduces dataset ranking costs by over 100x relative to the best baseline, (ii) achieves the strongest correlation across six reasoning benchmarks at 1B to 32B scale, and (iii) zero-shot transfers predictive relationships across pre-training datasets at 1B to 7B scale. These findings indicate that rBridge offers a practical path for exploring reasoning-oriented pre-training at lower cost.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant promise in formal theorem proving. In this study, we investigate the ability of LLMs to discover novel theorems and produce verified proofs. We propose a pipeline called Conjecturing-Proving Loop (CPL), which iteratively generates mathematical conjectures and attempts to prove them in Lean 4. A key feature of CPL is that each iteration conditions the LLM on previously generated theorems and their formal proofs, enabling parameter-free improvement of proof strategies via in-context learning. We provide both theoretical and experimental evidence that CPL increases the discovery rate of hard-to-prove theorems compared to frameworks that generate statements and proofs simultaneously. Moreover, our experiments show that reusing the LLM's own formally verified outputs as context consistently improves subsequent proof success, demonstrating the effectiveness of self-generated in-context learning for neural theorem proving. The source code is available at https://github.com/auto-res/ConjecturingProvingLoop.

Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, but the process is opaque, which makes verification, debugging, and control difficult in high-stakes settings. We present Vis-CoT, a human-in-the-loop framework that converts linear CoT text into an interactive reasoning graph. Users can visualize the logical flow, identify flawed steps, and intervene by pruning incorrect paths and grafting new, user-defined premises. This shifts interaction from passive observation to active collaboration, steering models toward more accurate and trustworthy conclusions. Across GSM8K and StrategyQA, Vis-CoT improves final-answer accuracy by up to 24 percentage points over non-interactive baselines. A user study also shows large gains in perceived usability and trust. Vis-CoT points to a practical path for more reliable, understandable, and collaborative reasoning by combining LLMs with targeted human oversight.

With respect to improving the reasoning accuracy of LLMs, the representative reinforcement learning (RL) method - Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) - has achieved critical success, yet it still suffers from the issue of insignificant reward signals. This paper introduces ReST-RL, a unified Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) policy-value framework that reconnects policy optimization and value-guided search to improve LLM reasoning ability. Firstly, ReST-GRPO adopts an optimized ReST-style algorithm to reshape the policy-induced trajectory distribution by increasing the reward variance of GRPO sampling and exposing the policy to more informative partial states, thereby improving training efficiency and effectiveness. Then, we further introduce a decoding optimization method, VM-MCTS, which trains a Value Model (VM) from self-collected Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) targets and deploys it through an adapted MCTS algorithm to provide precise process signals and verification scores, further enhancing reasoning accuracy. These two stages are internally dependent - ReST-GRPO yields higher-quality trajectories for value learning with VM-MCTS, which in turn enables more effective inference-time search. We validate our framework on multiple coding benchmarks (e.g., APPS, BigCodeBench, and HumanEval), where it significantly outperforms other reinforcement training baselines (naive GRPO, DAPO, and ReST-DPO), as well as decoding and verification baselines (e.g., PRM-BoN and ORM-MCTS), indicating its power to strengthen LLM reasoning capability. Moreover, we further evaluate ReST-RL on out-of-domain math and science reasoning tasks, where it achieves improved performance without target-domain tuning and favorable end-to-end efficiency trade-offs, providing preliminary transfer evidence beyond our primary coding domain.

Tool use is often assumed to monotonically improve reasoning, where external evidence is expected to help when relevant and be ignored when irrelevant. We show that this assumption fails in a state-dependent way. Across benchmarks with Python and Wikipedia tools, external evidence reliably helps when initial beliefs are weak, but can flip already-correct answers when those beliefs are strong. We frame this as a misallocation of revision authority, arguing that deferring to external evidence is suboptimal when internal support for the correct answer surpasses the tool's expected output quality. This predicts that harm should concentrate on high-confidence no-tool cases. We test this prediction with threshold localization, wrong-trace audits, and a same-clue intervention showing that revision framing changes the damage caused by misleading evidence. These findings suggest that mixed no-tool/tool-assisted inference should arbitrate authority rather than privilege tool evidence by default. As a minimal demonstration, we introduce CASE, a label-free controller that selects between no-tool and tool-assisted trajectories using answer-state certainty and improves over existing confidence-based arbitration baselines.The code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/epsilondylan/State-Dependent-Belief-Revision.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in reasoning across diverse domains. However, effective reasoning in real-world tasks requires adapting the reasoning strategy to the demands of the problem, ranging from fast, intuitive responses to deliberate, step-by-step reasoning and tool-augmented thinking. Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, we propose a novel taxonomy of LLM reasoning strategies along two knowledge boundaries: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive from deliberative processes, and an internal/external boundary distinguishing reasoning grounded in the model's parameters from reasoning augmented by external tools. We systematically survey recent work on adaptive reasoning in LLMs and categorize methods based on key decision factors. We conclude by highlighting open challenges and future directions toward more adaptive, efficient, and reliable LLMs.

Process Reward Models (PRMs), which assign fine-grained scores to intermediate reasoning steps within a solution trajectory, have emerged as a promising approach to enhance the reasoning quality of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, most existing PRMs rely on a unidirectional left-to-right (L2R) evaluation scheme, which restricts their utilization of global context. In light of this challenge, we propose a novel bidirectional evaluation paradigm, named Bidirectional Process Reward Model (BiPRM). BiPRM incorporates a parallel right-to-left (R2L) evaluation stream, implemented via prompt reversal, alongside the conventional L2R flow. Then a gating mechanism is introduced to adaptively fuse the reward scores from both streams to yield a holistic quality assessment. Remarkably, compared to the original PRM, BiPRM introduces only a 0.3% parameter increase for the gating module, and the parallel execution of two streams incurs merely 5% inference time latency. Our extensive empirical evaluations spanning diverse benchmarks, LLM backbones, PRM objectives and sampling policies demonstrate that BiPRM consistently surpasses unidirectional baselines, achieving an average relative gain of 10.6% over 54 solution-level configurations and 37.7% in 12 step-level error detection scenarios. Generally, our results highlight the effectiveness, robustness and general applicability of BiPRM, offering a promising new direction for process-based reward modeling.

Explicit knowledge conflicts, occurring when retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, pose a fundamental challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) as they integrate increasingly diverse data sources. The core difficulty lies in the complexity of entangled narratives and heterogeneous conflict patterns, which frequently exceeds the reasoning capacity of standard backbone architectures. We propose \textbf{\textsc{Kcr}} (Knowledge Conflict Reasoning), a framework that adjudicates contradictions by systematically structuring their underlying logic. \textsc{Kcr} disentangles conflicting contexts into discrete sets of reasoning traces, utilizing a hybrid representation of text and graphs to facilitate systematic comprehension. It then employs a Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) paradigm to instill a reasoning policy that maximizes logical consistency while suppressing spurious paths derived from contradictory evidence. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that \textsc{Kcr} yields substantial performance gains. Notably, a 7B model enhanced by \textsc{Kcr} achieves adjudication capabilities that significantly outperform leading proprietary models, including GPT-4o and GPT-5.1, on complex tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/zhengxianda/KCR.