LLM Reasoning Strategies

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.

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.

Humans can apply ideas learned in one context to substantially different situations. We call this process of searching for and constructing novel recombinations of learned relationships to solve new problems \textit{out-of-distribution (OOD) reasoning}. The capacity for large language models (LLMs) to support OOD reasoning underpins proposals for generally intelligent systems. However, this property is challenging to measure because most problems admit many decompositions, some involving shallow subproblems and others involving subproblems that may have been memorized from the training data. This makes it difficult to determine how much compositional reasoning a model must actually perform. Uncertainty about training distributions, how to measure a datapoint's distance from a training distribution, and the exponential number of ways to decompose most tasks make it intractable to robustly measure any modern LLM's OOD-reasoning capacity on standard natural-language tasks. In this work, we introduce a benchmark in which a model progressively solves a Boolean circuit over $GF(2)$ from data. This benchmark is both minimal, isolating OOD reasoning from these confounding factors, and general, as any computable function can be represented as a sufficiently large $GF(2)$ polynomial. We find that standalone models' next-step accuracy collapses as depth grows. In contrast, tool use through the synthesis and execution of code prevents this collapse in both small and frontier LLMs. These results indicate that synthesizing tools play a crucial role in supporting OOD reasoning.

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.

Flowchart-oriented dialogue (FOD) systems aim to guide users through multi-turn decision-making or operational procedures by following a domain-specific flowchart to achieve a task goal. In this work, we formalize flowchart reasoning in FOD as grounding user input to flowchart nodes at each dialogue turn while ensuring node transition is consistent with the correct flowchart path. Despite recent advances of LLMs in task-oriented dialogue systems, adapting them to FOD still faces two limitations: (1) LLMs lack an explicit mechanism to represent and reason over flowchart topology, and (2) they are prone to hallucinations, leading to unfaithful flowchart reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose FloCA, a zero-shot flowchart-oriented conversational agent. FloCA uses an LLM for intent understanding and response generation, while delegating flowchart reasoning to an external tool that performs topology-constrained graph execution, ensuring faithful and logically consistent node transitions across dialogue turns. We further introduce an evaluation framework with an LLM-based user simulator and five new metrics covering reasoning accuracy and interaction efficiency. Extensive experiments on FLODIAL and PFDial datasets highlight the bottlenecks of existing LLM/VLM-based methods and demonstrate the superiority of FloCA. The code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/Jinzi-Zou/FloCA-flowchart-reasoning.

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.

Text-to-SQL is a key natural language processing task that maps natural language questions to SQL queries, enabling intuitive interaction with web-based databases. Although current methods perform well on benchmarks like BIRD and Spider, they struggle with complex reasoning, domain knowledge, and hypothetical queries, and remain costly in enterprise deployment. To address these issues, we propose a framework named IESR(Information Enhanced Structured Reasoning) for lightweight large language models: (i) leverages LLMs for key information understanding and schema linking, and decoupling mathematical computation and SQL generation, (ii) integrates a multi-path reasoning mechanism based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with majority voting, and (iii) introduces a trajectory consistency verification module with a discriminator model to ensure accuracy and consistency. Experimental results demonstrate that IESR achieves state-of-the-art performance on the complex reasoning benchmark LogicCat (24.28 EX) and the Archer dataset (37.28 EX) using only compact lightweight models without fine-tuning. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that current coder models exhibit notable biases and deficiencies in physical knowledge, mathematical computation, and common-sense reasoning, highlighting important directions for future research. We released code at https://github.com/Ffunkytao/IESR-SLM.

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.

Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) for discriminative workloads is often limited by inference latency, compute, and API costs at scale. Active distillation reduces these costs by querying an LLM oracle to train small discriminative students, but most pipelines distill only final labels, discarding intermediate reasoning signals and offering limited diagnostics of what reasoning is missing and where errors arise. We propose Graph of Concept Predictors (GCP), a reasoning-aware active distillation framework in which the teacher's reasoning is elicited as a directed acyclic graph of intermediate concepts and mirrored in the student. GCP enhances sample efficiency through a graph-aware acquisition strategy that weights per-concept uncertainty, gradient diversity, and coverage by node centrality. Additionally, it improves training stability and efficiency by performing targeted sub-module retraining, which attributes downstream loss to specific concept predictors and updates only the most influential modules. Experiments on eight NLP classification benchmarks demonstrate that GCP enhances performance under limited annotation budgets while yielding more interpretable and controllable training dynamics. Code is available at https://github.com/Ziyang-Yu/GCP.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant breakthroughs across various domains, but they can still produce unreliable or misleading outputs. For responsible LLM applications, uncertainty quantification techniques are used to estimate a model's uncertainty about its outputs, indicating the likelihood that those outputs may be problematic. For LLM reasoning tasks, it is essential to estimate uncertainty not only in the final answer but also in the intermediate reasoning process, particularly to identify where uncertainty arises. Such information may enable more fine-grained and targeted interventions during inference. In this study, we investigate which metrics can effectively localize uncertain places within an LLM reasoning trajectory. Our study reveals that uncertain intermediate continuations are more likely to occur at tokens that are highly sensitive to perturbations in the embeddings of preceding tokens. In our experiments, we show that such perturbation-based metrics achieve stronger performance in localizing uncertain intermediate steps than baseline methods, including probability-based, sampling-based, and Bayesian-based approaches. Meanwhile, our proposed metrics also enjoy good simplicity and efficiency.

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.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting often improves the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), but the internal signal that triggers this behavior remains poorly understood. Leveraging the sparse features captured by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs), we propose a systematic framework to analyze and intervene on the internal representations of LLMs, identifying a small set of latent features that are linked to reasoning behavior and can be causally tested through targeted intervention. Across multiple model families and reasoning benchmarks, we show that steering one or a small number of reasoning-related latent features can substantially induce reasoning behavior without explicit CoT prompting, achieving accuracy comparable to CoT. We further show that the identified features are not tied to particular wording patterns or verbosity, and confirm their causal role in reasoning through suppression experiments that impair performance even under CoT prompting. These results suggest that CoT prompting activates specific latent features to trigger reasoning, and that targeted intervention on these features offers an alternative pathway to elicit efficient reasoning behavior without explicit CoT prompting. Code is available at https://github.com/Zhenghao-He/LatentCoT.

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%.

Earlier research has shown that metaphors influence human decision-making, raising the question of whether metaphors also influence large language models (LLMs)' reasoning pathways, given that their training data contain a large number of metaphors. In this work, we investigate the problem in the scope of the emergent misalignment problem, where LLMs can generalize patterns learned from misaligned content in one domain to another domain. We find strong evidence that metaphors in training data contribute to cross-domain misalignment in LLMs' reasoning outputs. With metaphor-based interventions during continued pre-training and fine-tuning for inducing misalignment, models exhibit significantly different degrees of emergent cross-domain misalignment. We also observe similar effects in re-alignment settings. As we further investigate this phenomenon, we find that metaphors are linked to the activation of latent features in large reasoning models. By monitoring these latent features, we design a detector that predicts misaligned content with high accuracy.

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.

Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and health-care that operate under strict policies. To address this limitation, we launched Automated Reasoning checks (ARc): a public service that (1) uses LLMs with optional human guidance to formalize natural language policies, allowing fine-grained control of the formalization process, and (2) uses inference-time autoformalization to validate logical correctness of natural language statements against those policies. ARc performs multiple redundant formalization steps at inference time, checking the formalizations for semantic equivalence. Our benchmarks show that ARc exceeds 99% soundness and achieves a near-zero false positive rate in identifying logical validity. Our approach produces auditable artifacts that substantiate the verification outcomes and can be used to improve the original text. ARc is the first commercial offering from a major cloud provider to integrate automated reasoning into a generative AI guardrail.

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.

Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) describe how Large Language Models (LLMs) make decisions by drawing on external Context Knowledge (CK) and Parametric Knowledge (PK). Understanding the interaction between these sources is key to assessing NLE grounding, yet these dynamics remain underexplored. Prior work has largely focused on i) single-step generation and ii) modeled PK--CK interaction as a binary choice within a rank-1 subspace. This approach overlooks richer interactions and how they unfold over longer generations, such as complementary or supportive knowledge. We propose a novel rank-2 projection subspace that disentangles PK and CK contributions more accurately and use it for the first multi-step analysis of knowledge interactions across longer NLE sequences. Experiments across four QA datasets and three open-weight LLMs demonstrate that rank-1 subspaces struggle to represent diverse interactions, whereas our rank-2 formulation captures them effectively, highlighting PK alignment for supportive interactions and CK alignment for conflicting ones. Our multi-step analysis reveals that hallucinated generations exhibit strong alignment with the PK direction, though context-faithful generations maintain a more balanced alignment between PK and CK.

Recent advances in large language model (LLM) reasoning through reinforcement learning rely on annotated datasets for verifiable rewards, which may limit models' ability to surpass human-level performance. While self-play offers a promising alternative, prior methods yield only marginal or even negative gains on post-trained models because they generate problems that cluster around familiar concepts rather than discovering novel ones. We introduce Open-Ended Self-Improving Reasoner (OpenSIR), a self-play framework in which a single LLM alternates teacher and student roles to generate and solve novel problems without external verifiers or annotated data. Starting from a single seed problem, OpenSIR sustains open-ended exploration through diversity rewards that push the model toward unfamiliar concepts and difficulty calibration that keeps problems learnable. Across seven math benchmarks, OpenSIR consistently improves all models, averaging +3.6 points on instruction models and +3.1 on reasoning models, while recent self-play baselines yield marginal or even negative gains; starting from a single trivial seed, it also surpasses GRPO baselines trained on over 7K annotated examples. Despite training only on self-generated math, OpenSIR is the only self-play method that transfers to general reasoning, improving by at least +4.4 points on reasoning models.

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.

Hallucination remains one of the key obstacles to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs). Although various mitigation approaches have been proposed, existing studies often analyze different technical paradigms independently, lacking a unified perspective to understand the underlying mechanisms of different approaches and their correspondence with different types of hallucinations. This survey adopts a capability enhancement perspective to systematically examine hallucination mitigation approaches, focusing on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), reasoning enhancement, and their integration within agentic systems. Based on their primary mitigation mechanisms, we categorize hallucinations into knowledge-based hallucinations and logic-based hallucinations, analyze how RAG and reasoning enhancement methods respectively improve knowledge acquisition and reasoning reliability, and further discuss the integration mechanisms of retrieval and reasoning capabilities in Agentic Systems for mitigating composite hallucinations. By considering the applicability, mitigation mechanisms, and limitations of different approaches, this survey establishes a unified analytical framework connecting hallucination types, key capability dimensions, and technical paradigms.

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 a language model improve reasoning by learning from its own imperfect responses, without rewards or teacher-provided solutions? We present Self-evolving Post-Training (SePT), a simple method that alternates temperature-controlled self-generation with next-token likelihood training. Each round uses the updated model to generate new training responses, with one response per prompt by default and no correctness filtering. Across six mathematical benchmarks, SePT improves a temperature-selected no-training baseline by 11.4 and 6.7 AVG points on Qwen2.5-Math-7B and Qwen2.5-7B, respectively, where AVG averages Pass@1, Pass@8 and Pass@32 across benchmarks. We analyze how sampling temperature shapes the learning signal and investigate the value of the resulting responses. Responses from a SePT-trained model improve a student initialized from the original weights, while their reasoning prefixes help an unchanged model complete solutions, even when matched in length to prefixes from a colder initial model. Comparing next-token predictions at identical contexts also reveals changes in token rankings that decoding-temperature adjustment cannot reproduce. Further evaluations across nine starting models, general reasoning and code generation examine broader applicability. Together, these results show that reward-free self-training can improve both a model's predictions and the supervision it provides. Our code is available at https://github.com/ElementQi/SePT.

Hybrid thinking enables LLMs to switch between reasoning and direct answering, offering a balance between efficiency and reasoning capability. Yet our experiments reveal that current hybrid thinking LLMs only achieve partial mode separation: reasoning behaviors often leak into the no-think mode. To understand and mitigate this, we analyze the factors influencing controllability and identify four that matter most: (1) larger data scale, (2) using think and no-think answers from different questions rather than the same question, (3) a moderate increase in no-think data number, and (4) a two-phase strategy that first trains reasoning ability and then applies hybrid think training. Building on these findings, we propose a practical recipe that, compared to standard training, can maintain accuracy in both modes while significantly reducing no-think output length (from 1085 to 585 on MATH500) and occurrences of reasoning-supportive tokens such as "wait" (from 5917 to 522 on MATH500). Our findings highlight the limitations of current hybrid thinking and offer directions for strengthening its controllability. The code is available at: https://github.com/SR-A-W/demystifying-hybrid-thinking

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.

The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic. Prior work has studied both outcome reward models (ORMs), which assess only the final answer, and process reward models (PRMs), which score intermediate reasoning steps. Although PRMs are often viewed as advantageous due to their finer-grained supervision, much of the supporting evidence comes from math-adjacent settings, and their relative benefits across broader domains remain unclear. We present the first unified evaluation of four reward model variants, discriminative ORM and PRM (dORM, dPRM) and generative ORM and PRM (gORM, gPRM), across 14 diverse domains. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find that (i) dORM performs on par with dPRM, (ii) gPRM is not competitive, and (iii) overall, gORM is the most robust, yielding significant and consistent gains across every tested domain. We attribute the worse performance of gPRM to the stepwise scoring process, which inherits label noise from LLM-based automatic labeling, leading to difficulties in evaluating long reasoning trajectories, including those involving self-correcting reasoning. Both our theoretical analysis and empirical observations indicate that stepwise aggregation compounds errors as reasoning length increases. These findings challenge the common assumption that fine-grained supervision is always better and support generative outcome verification for multi-domain deployment. Our \href{https://github.com/db-Lee/Multi-RM}{\underline{code}} is publicly available to facilitate future research in multi-domain settings.

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.

Understanding persuasion is critical for the safety and reliability of multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs). This paper studies persuasion dynamics by contrasting general LLMs with Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) that employ explicit ``thinking'' processes. Through large-scale experiments on objective (MMLU) and subjective (PersuasionBench and Perspectrum) tasks, we identify Persuasion Duality: reasoning enhances an agent's persuasive power while simultaneously increasing its resistance to persuasion. For LRMs, adding thinking content increases persuasion rates by 21 pp on average, yet reduces susceptibility to incorrect persuasion by up to 10 pp on objective tasks. Despite these gains, we uncover a critical vulnerability: persuasiveness often stems from superficial cues such as response length and repetition rather than logical validity. Non-semantic padding or repeated conclusions can match or exceed the persuasive effect of coherent reasoning, revealing a strong length bias in agents' judgments. We further show that persuasion propagates non-linearly in multi-hop agent chains, where intermediate agents may amplify or attenuate influence depending on task subjectivity. Finally, guided by attention analysis, we propose a prompt-level adversarial argument detection method that consistently improves agent robustness.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities in tasks such as algorithmic coding and mathematical problem-solving. Recent methods have improved reasoning through expanded corpus and multistage training combining reinforcement learning and supervised fine-tuning. Although some methods suggest that small but targeted dataset can incentivize reasoning via only distillation, a reasoning scaling laws is still taking shape, increasing computational costs. To address this, we propose a data-efficient distillation framework (DED) that optimizes the Pareto frontier of reasoning distillation. Inspired by the on-policy learning and diverse roll-out strategies of reinforcement learning, the key idea of our approach is threefold: (1) We identify that benchmark scores alone do not determine an effective teacher model. Through comprehensive comparisons of leading reasoning LLMs, we develop a method to select an optimal teacher model. (2) While scaling distillation can enhance reasoning, it often degrades out-of-domain performance. A carefully curated, smaller corpus achieves a balanced trade-off between in-domain and out-of-domain capabilities. (3) Diverse reasoning trajectories encourage the student model to develop robust reasoning skills. We validate our method through evaluations on mathematical reasoning (AIME 2024/2025, MATH-500) and code generation (LiveCodeBench), achieving state-of-the-art results with only 0.8k carefully curated examples, bypassing the need for extensive scaling. Our systematic analysis demonstrates that DED outperforms existing methods by considering factors beyond superficial hardness, token length, or teacher model capability. This work offers a practical and efficient pathway to advanced reasoning while preserving general capabilities.

Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty. Although recent studies have developed frameworks to estimate PT parameters for Large Language Models (LLMs), few have examined whether PT itself adequately describes LLM decision-making behavior. To address these gaps, we develop a streamlined workflow grounded in a classic behavioral economics experimental paradigm. First, we estimate PT parameters and evaluate how well the resulting model captures LLM decision-making behavior. We then derive probability mappings for epistemic markers in the same context and inject them into prompts to examine the stability of PT parameters under linguistic uncertainty. Our findings suggest that PT does not consistently provide a reliable account of LLM decision-making across models, and that its application to LLMs is likely sensitive to epistemic uncertainty. The findings caution against the deployment of PT-based frameworks in real-world applications where epistemic ambiguity is prevalent, giving valuable insights in behaviour interpretation and future alignment direction for LLM decision-making.

Enhancing LLM reasoning in federated settings is nontrivial due to stringent computational, communication, and privacy constraints, especially in healthcare, where clinically consequential decisions require not only accuracy but also interpretable, auditable rationales to meet safety, accountability, and regulatory requirements. Conventional federated fine-tuning largely imitates final answers rather than cultivating step-by-step reasoning, often relying on privacy-sensitive centralized distillation and still incurring substantial communication overhead. We address this gap with \textbf{\ours{}}, a federated reasoning framework that combines lightweight chain-of-thought resampling with a compact discriminator for selection, and client-aware LoRA stacking with weighted classifier aggregation to accommodate heterogeneity while reducing aggregation noise and communication; clients generate candidate chains and supervision locally, and only lightweight modules are aggregated on the server. Experiments on medical reasoning benchmarks show consistent gains under tight resource budgets while keeping data local and respecting privacy, offering an interpretable and resource-efficient solution. Our code is made publicly available at https://github.com/DIaacKr/FedCoT

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.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine has enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning, a cornerstone of clinical practice. This has catalyzed a shift from single-step answer generation to the development of LLMs explicitly designed for medical reasoning. This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field. We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies (e.g., supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning) and test-time mechanisms (e.g., prompt engineering, multi-agent systems). We analyze how these techniques are applied across different data modalities (text, image, code) and in key clinical applications such as diagnosis, education, and treatment planning. Furthermore, we survey the evolution of evaluation benchmarks from simple accuracy metrics to sophisticated assessments of reasoning quality and visual interpretability. Based on an analysis of 60 seminal studies from 2022-2025, we conclude by identifying critical challenges, including the faithfulness-plausibility gap and the need for native multimodal reasoning, and outlining future directions toward building efficient, robust, and sociotechnically responsible medical AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce plausible but poorly-calibrated answers, limiting their reliability on reasoning-intensive tasks. Recent research suggests that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning paths are inherent in pre-trained LLMs and can be elicited by simply altering the decoding process, where the presence of a CoT path correlates with higher answer confidence. Building on these insights, we present Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback (RLSF), a post-training stage that utilises the model's intrinsic confidence as a self-generated reward. By generating multiple CoT decoding beams from a frozen LLM, we compute the confidence of each final answer span and rank the resulting traces accordingly to create synthetic preferences. These preferences are subsequently utilised to fine-tune the policy through standard preference optimisation, requiring no human labels, gold answers, or externally curated rewards. RLSF simultaneously (i) refines the model's probability estimates--restoring well-behaved calibration--and (ii) strengthens step-by-step reasoning, yielding improved performance on arithmetic reasoning and multiple-choice question answering. By converting a model's own uncertainty into structured self-feedback, RLSF affirms reinforcement learning on intrinsic model behaviour as a principled and data-efficient component of the LLM post-training pipeline. Our results demonstrate that leveraging these inherent reasoning capabilities provides a robust path for enhancing model reliability without manual prompt engineering or external supervision.

Large language models (LLMs) reason fluently but do not regulate their reasoning: they apply uniform scrutiny to every input, which leaves them vulnerable to adversarial and counterfactual prompts, while indiscriminate critique over-corrects answers that were already sound. We propose MetaCrit, a multi-agent framework grounded in Nelson and Narens' metacognitive regulation theory that calibrates how much critique each task receives. MetaCrit separates regulation into four agents: an object-level generator, a monitoring agent that assesses response validity, a control agent that critiques logical soundness, and a meta-level synthesizer that reconciles their signals into a regulated response. Adaptivity here is input-conditioned intervention strength within a fixed pipeline: all four agents run on every input and what varies is the direction and magnitude of the correction they produce, not which stages execute. Across reasoning, safety, and bias benchmarks, MetaCrit improves truthfulness and logical soundness and reaches zero toxicity on BOLD and HONEST without a reasoning trade-off, whereas the same critique applied indiscriminately degrades performance. The cost is four calls per query, about one sixth of the cost of a dedicated reasoning model of similar accuracy. A writing study shows that MetaCrit is preferred for critical-thinking support, and its agents transfer to existing frameworks without architectural change. Code is available at https://github.com/Paparare/EduThink4AI.

Training on vast amounts of human-generated data has motivated growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to simulate human behavior. We ask which features of human behavior general-purpose models preserve when used out of the box in auctions, where multiple bidders interact under explicit rules and incentives. We evaluate five LLMs across seven laboratory settings against human benchmarks reconstructed from published experiments, with uncertainty bands for the private-value comparisons. Our main focus is on three large models without extended test-time reasoning: GPT-4o, Claude3.5 Haiku, and Gemini2.0 Flash. LLM and human deviations from theory differ in magnitude and often in direction: humans overbid in second-price auctions, whereas most models that deviate underbid. Surprisingly, without task-specific fine-tuning or calibration to human bids, the three non-reasoning large models robustly preserve key orderings of auction formats by deviation from theory. First-price auctions are harder than second-price, and ascending clocks reduce deviations relative to sealed bids wherever data are adequate. Kendall's $τ_b$ between the human and GPT-4o difficulty rankings is $0.60$ and positive in every joint bootstrap draw. The reasoning model bids almost at equilibrium in the observed private-value settings, leaving little variation in errors to compare; the small model's large errors yield an inverted ranking. All five models nevertheless reproduce the stronger first-price winner's curse. Clock framing improves bidding for two of the three non-reasoning large models, and GPT-4o recovers the ordering of last-minute bidding across closing rules in an eBay-style marketplace.

Long-context reasoning requires accurately identifying relevant information in extensive, noisy input contexts. In this work, we propose PERK (Parameter Efficient Reasoning over Knowledge), a scalable approach for learning to encode long contexts using gradient updates at test time. Specifically, PERK employs two nested optimization loops in a meta-training phase. The inner loop rapidly encodes contexts into a low-rank adapter (LoRA) that serves as a parameter-efficient memory module for the base model. Concurrently, the outer loop learns to use the updated adapter to accurately recall and reason over relevant information from the encoded long context. Our evaluations on several long-context reasoning tasks show that PERK significantly outperforms the standard long-context finetuning, achieving average absolute performance gains of up to 20% for Qwen-2.5 (0.5B & 7B) on synthetic and real-world long-context reasoning. PERK also maintains its advantages across model scales and families. Compared to specialized long-context LLMs, PERK matches or surpasses their performance. Finally, our analyses show PERK is more robust to reasoning complexity, length extrapolation, and the positions of relevant information in contexts. https://perk-long-context.web.app