Large Language Model Reasoning

Reasoning traces have become a valuable form of learning signals for improving and transferring the capabilities of large language models. In particular, detailed traces can help distill reasoning behavior from stronger teacher models into weaker student models. The value of capability transfer has motivated many deployed systems with reasoning models to hide raw internal traces and expose at most summaries and answers to users. As a result, we ask whether such interface-level trace hiding prevents users from obtaining useful reasoning supervision through prompting. We study this question with Reasoning Exposure Prompting (REP), a lightweight in-context elicitation method that uses shadow-model-generated demonstrations wrapped in auxiliary code-like formats to raise user-visible reasoning traces from a victim model. Across the common reasoning dataset, different victim models, and different student model distillation, REP substantially increases similarity between exposed and REP-conditioned internal traces while preserving useful reasoning signals.

Network faults propagate layer by layer along topology and protocol dependencies, yet operations systems typically observe only symptomatic alerts at the tail end of propagation chains, where distinct root-cause faults may produce highly similar end-point symptoms. Existing approaches, whether rule-based, machine learning (ML)-based, or large language model (LLM)-based, fundamentally map the alert set to a diagnosis in a single pass and are structurally incapable of resolving this end-point ambiguity. This paper proposes PropLLM, which is the first to integrate the hop-by-hop scene reconstruction paradigm with the generative reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Starting from end-point alerts, PropLLM traces back hop-by-hop along the propagation path, retrieving verifiable factual evidence from a dual-layer knowledge graph (KG) at each hop, while the proposed Temporal Causal Propagation Attention (TCPA) mechanism encodes known topological causal priors directly into the attention computation to guide the model along the correct causal direction, ultimately localizing the root cause and determining the fault type through a fully evidenced causal chain. On a real-world Wi-Fi multimodal fault dataset, PropLLM improves fault type diagnosis accuracy by 3.9% and root cause localization accuracy by 4.7% over the strongest baseline, while reducing the hallucination rate by 50.8%. Supplementary experiments on the TeleLogs 5G dataset further demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method across different network scenarios.

On-Policy Distillation (OPD) improves large language model reasoning by training a student model on trajectories sampled from its own policy under teacher supervision. Although OPD operates on trajectories, its learning signal remains token-level: it identifies deviations through high-loss tokens and repairs them through local reverse-KL correction. We show that this "trajectory-sampled but token-learned" mechanism cannot reliably bridge student trajectories toward teacher trajectories. About 30% of high-loss tokens fall into the low-divergence regime, indicating that many are surface-form mismatches rather than real reasoning forks. Moreover, even truly divergent tokens are difficult to repair with isolated token-level supervision, since reasoning failures often unfold as short-horizon distributional drift. We propose Trajectory-aware OPD (TOPD), which uses near-future trajectory information to identify real divergent states and distribute guidance across multiple future tokens. Experiments show that suppressing non-divergent high-loss tokens improves standard OPD from 47.8% to 48.2% average accuracy, while TOPD further improves performance to 52.2%, with gains on AIME24 from 60.0% to 63.3% and AIME25 from 46.7% to 53.3%.

Long-context reasoning remains a central challenge for large language models, which often fail to locate and integrate key information in extensive distracting content. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise for this task, yet existing methods are limited by low-confusability distractors and sparse, outcome-only reward signals that cannot supervise intermediate reasoning steps. To address these issues, we introduce \textsc{LongTraceRL}. For data construction, we generate multi-hop questions via knowledge graph random walks and leverage search agent trajectories to build \emph{tiered distractors}: documents the agent read but did not cite (high confusability) and documents that appeared in search results but were never opened (low confusability), producing training contexts that are far more challenging than those built by random sampling or one-shot search. For reward design, we propose a \emph{rubric reward} that uses the gold entities along each reasoning chain as fine-grained, entity-level process supervision. This rubric reward is applied only to responses with correct final answers (positive-only strategy), distinguishing the reasoning quality among correct responses and preventing reward hacking. Experiments on three reasoning LLMs (4B--30B) across five long-context benchmarks demonstrate that \textsc{LongTraceRL} consistently outperforms strong baselines and encourages comprehensive, evidence-grounded reasoning. Codes, datasets and models are available at \href{https://github.com/THU-KEG/LongTraceRL}{https://github.com/THU-KEG/LongTraceRL}.

Test-time reasoning has become a significant field of study since the introduction of chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, the mechanisms of this reasoning process are still under-explored -- from the same input prompt, and even the same partial solution, LLMs can produce varied answers if sampled multiple times. We propose to leverage question-asking as an inference-time intervention that articulates information about the model's hidden state. To achieve that, we present a student-teacher setting where a student asks questions to a teacher. We train a probe on the student's hidden state before and after asking a question and find it is predictive of the trajectory's final correctness, even before generating the teacher's answer. This suggests there is a meaningful signal from the self-diagnosis that occurs during question generation rather than information transfer from the teacher. We then frame question-asking as a sequential decision problem, using this probe as a quality score, and define a gating policy to ask questions that maximize likelihood of correctness. We find that the success of question-asking as an intervention is largely dependent on the model's self-consistency. Our empirical results show a gap between detection and recovery; while our gating policy captures model correctness and uncertainty, interventions are equally likely to harm correct trajectories as they are to recover incorrect ones. This gap between diagnosis and correction has broader implications on language models' capacity for self-refinement under uncertainty.

Large language models (LLMs) often solve reasoning problems by generating intermediate traces that explore and revise partial solutions. From a search perspective, these traces can be viewed as linearized search trees, where the model extends a partial solution, abandons it when it fails, and backtracks to try alternatives. Compared with traditional heuristic-guided search, such a policy has a potential advantage: it conditions on the whole search trace rather than only on the current local state. We first test whether LLMs utilize this advantage by comparing trace-conditioned reasoning policies against best-first search equipped with an LLM heuristic that only observes the current local state. Across three controlled reasoning environments, Blocks World, grid Navigation, and Sokoban, we find that raw access to search history alone is not enough to reliably outperform heuristic search. We then study one possible reason: in LLM reasoning traces, the underlying search tree is only implicitly represented, and when the model backtracks or switches branches, the trace does not explicitly identify which earlier search state is being revisited. We show that adding simple parent pointers to explicitly represent the linearized tree (LinTree) structure improves both task performance and search efficiency relative to implicit reasoning models and LLM-heuristic-guided search. These results suggest that search history becomes most useful when its tree structure is made explicit, motivating more structure-aware representations for LLM reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced online data services, particularly in the domain of financial question answering (FinQA). However, such systems remain susceptible to numerical reasoning hallucinations, which critically undermine reliability in high-stakes financial applications. Although retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to ground responses in external knowledge, it introduces three persistent challenges: noise sensitivity, calculation fragility, and an auditability crisis. Existing model-centric approaches, which primarily focus on optimizing either the retriever or generator in isolation, still struggle to address these issues in an integrated manner. In this work, we pioneer a data-centric paradigm and propose a novel framework, the Data-centric Reasoning Compiler (DCRC). The framework operates through three cohesive phases: (1) adversarial data construction, which synthesizes training examples with controlled noise to teach robustness; (2) multi-stage training that cultivates a Data-centric Structuring Agent (DSA) capable of explicit evidence auditing and program synthesis; and (3) a compile-and-execute inference process, where the DSA transforms user queries and retrieved documents into verifiable, executable reasoning programs. This data-driven framework ensures faithful numerical reasoning by design. We conduct extensive experiments on established offline benchmarks and further validate our framework through deployment in a real-world online financial QA system.

Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at understanding natural language but struggle with optimisation tasks involving multiple constraints and user-defined preferences, which commonly arise in domains such as robotics. We propose a hybrid reasoning approach in which LLMs externalise reasoning through code generation. Given a natural language problem description, an LLM generates Python code that encodes user-defined constraints and preferences as a preference-based Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) problem, which is then solved by an exact MaxSAT solver. To ensure correctness, solutions returned by the model-generated code are independently verified for feasibility and optimality against a canonical MaxSAT encoding, allowing for different encodings and multiple optimal solutions. We evaluate our approach using both open-source and closed-access LLMs on three families of preference-based reasoning tasks, and compare it against direct-answer, chain-of-thought, and program-of-thought baselines using the same models. While these baselines rarely produce feasible solutions, the MaxSAT-based pipeline achieves substantially higher acceptance rates, in some cases exceeding 80%. Our results demonstrate that LLM-driven code generation combined with preference-based MaxSAT enables solver-verifiable optimisation with respect to generated encodings, and substantially improves correctness under independently verified reference semantics.

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

Heuristic search is the dominant paradigm in symbolic AI planning, and the strongest heuristics are the result of decades of work by planning researchers. Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) can design heuristics for individual planning domains, but no LLM-generated heuristic has so far worked on arbitrary planning tasks. In this paper, we use evolutionary search to produce the first LLM-generated domain-independent heuristics that exceed the hand-engineered state of the art. We let an LLM mutate parent heuristics written in C++, store candidates in a MAP-Elites archive keyed on informedness and speed and calculate fitness scores by blending coverage with solving time. To place the evolved programs in context, we additionally benchmark a broad set of hand-engineered heuristics on their informedness-speed tradeoff, which to our knowledge has not been done before. On unseen testing domains, our best evolved heuristic solves more tasks than even the strongest baseline, with our full heuristic suite spanning the Pareto frontier of said tradeoff. We also find that seeding evolution from the trivial blind heuristic outperforms seeding from the strong FF heuristic, even when the resulting program is itself an FF variant, and that LLM reasoning effort affects how often candidates compile much more than the quality of those that do. Because the evolved programs are plain C++, they slot into existing planners as drop-in replacements and inherit the soundness and completeness guarantees of the underlying search.

Efficient Distillation (EDistill) compresses large language models (LLMs) by structured pruning parameters and tuning lightweight modules with high training efficiency. Although these EDistilled LLMs achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on general ability benchmarks relative to similarly sized LLMs, we identify a severe degradation in their multi-step reasoning ability, which we term reasoning collapse. We systematically analyze the geometric origins of reasoning collapse and show that the SOTA EDistill method based on width-reducing projection matrices suffers from eRank collapse, in which the effective rank (eRank) of hidden representations drops. We theoretically explain how singular values of randomly initialized projection matrices become unevenly distributed, leading to eRank collapse and thus token indistinguishability. To address this issue, we propose RED (Reasoning-preserved Efficient Distillation) for LLMs, which introduces activation-aware initialization to initialize projection matrices as channel-selection matrices, thus theoretically mitigating eRank collapse. Experiments on Llama and Qwen series demonstrate that RED substantially recovers reasoning while maintaining high training efficiency and SOTA general ability.

Chain-of-thought traces from large reasoning models can span tens of thousands of tokens, yet we lack a vocabulary for describing their internal structure. Previous methods developed to analyze chain-of-thought traces are either too rigid or not expressive enough, failing to capture features across domains and models. To remedy this, we develop ReasonOps, an unsupervised, expressive method for annotating chain-of-thought traces, providing succinct universal operators. Using ReasonOps, we analyze 44,662 traces from 12 thinking LLMs spanning 6 families across 8 reasoning benchmarks and discover that they share a common compositional structure: 7 recurring reasoning operators -- discourse-level moves such as backtracking, inferring, and hypothesizing -- that emerge from unsupervised clustering of sentence-initial 3-token pivots. These operators appear across every model family and benchmark domain, confirmed by three independent LLM judges who classify held-out samples at 70 -76% accuracy. We analyze the structure of operators on easy vs. hard problems, revealing that reflective operators are more helpful on hard problems and harm performance on easy problems. Operator sequences are highly model-identifying: a classifier trained on operator distributions alone recovers the source model with macro-AUC, revealing that each model family has a distinctive reasoning fingerprint. Structural operator features predict within-problem answer correctness well above baselines. Classifiers built on these operators reach WP-AUC and on AIME specifically. ReasonOps further enables early quality estimation well before the trace completes: we predict at WP-AUC for only 50% of the trace. The ReasonOps pipeline is unsupervised and annotation-free, enabling deep insights into LLM reasoning traces as well as strong downstream results on model identification and correctness prediction.

Reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves LLM reasoning, but the conditions under which it transfers across domains -- and why it does so -- remain under-explored. We study cross-domain transfer in a 7B model whose SFT and RL post-training stages use only constraint-satisfaction puzzles, with no mathematics problems in the post-training data. To analyze how transfer emerges, we introduce a reasoning primitive-level framework that combines a 9-class span classifier with motif extraction, allowing us to segment chain-of-thought traces into primitive motifs and track their evolution across training stages and domains. We find that puzzle SFT induces a reasoning-primitive vocabulary, yielding a $+7$pp \texttt{pass@32} gain on OlymMATH-Hard. Vanilla GSPO then composes these primitives into longer compute-verify chains, adding a further $+6$pp. However, this RL stage also suppresses exploratory primitives such as \textit{hypothesize} and \textit{backtrack}. To address this, we introduce a novelty bonus that rewards diverse correct rollouts, using perplexity under the reference model as a signal. This restores recovery primitives during RL and adds a further $+7$pp \texttt{pass@32} relative to vanilla GSPO. Finally, the end-to-end recipe raises the hard-math capability ceiling from $16.0\%$ at the OLMo3-7B-Instruct-SFT base to $36.0\%$, without adding any mathematics problems during the SFT or RL stages.

Personalized tutoring, teacher training, and education research need access to \emph{targeted} synthetic misconceptions, but privacy and IRB constraints make labelled corpora of real student errors scarce. LLMs could in principle generate synthetic errors at scale, but producing an arbitrary wrong answer is easy for a modern LLM while producing one that matches a specified cognitive failure mode is much harder. We present a framework that generates errors targeted to a five-class taxonomy adapted from the revised Bloom's taxonomy, evaluated on questions from the TheoremQA dataset. A Generation Agent (GA) drafts a candidate erroneous solution conditioned on a target class, and an Examination Agent (EA) judges whether the draft is incorrect and class-consistent. The framework yields a reusable recipe for building class-stratified synthetic error datasets where authentic student corpora are unavailable. As a secondary diagnostic, targeted error generation is substantially harder than free-form incorrect-answer generation, and answer-grounding contributes more than expanded examples or external textbook content.

On-policy self-distillation (SD) improves LLM reasoning by using teacher-side privileged information (PI) to turn sparse verifier outcomes into dense token-level supervision. Existing methods usually assume trusted PI, such as reference answers or successful traces. We ask whether PI can instead come from an experience-derived skill bank, where retrieved skills are compact and reusable but may also be irrelevant or misleading. We propose Skill-Conditioned Gated Self-Distillation (SGSD), which formulates skill-based SD as teacher hypothesis validation rather than unconditional imitation. SGSD retrieves skill-mistake pairs, constructs a multi-teacher pool, and lets all skill-conditioned teachers score the same plain-prompt student rollout. The verifier validates each teacher's polarity: supporting a success or suppressing a failure gives positive supervision, while the opposite stance is reversed. A robust gated objective then distills informative teacher-student disagreements while suppressing uncertain or extreme signals. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that SGSD consistently improves over GRPO and remains competitive with answer-conditioned OPSD under a weaker PI assumption. For example, on Qwen3-1.7B, SGSD outperforms GRPO by 6.2% and OPSD by 1.7% on average on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that implicitly reduce to Boolean satisfiability (SAT), yet their reasoning ability on SAT remains unclear. We present a systematic study of LLMs on 2-SAT and 3-SAT, together with two canonical reductions, Vertex Cover and discrete 3D packing, to probe representation-invariant reasoning. We first evaluate models using conventional metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, as well as the SAT phase-transition setting. We find that these metrics can be misleading: many models obtain high scores by over-predicting satisfiable formulas, fail to reproduce the classical easy-hard-easy signature around the 3-SAT threshold, and degrade sharply as the number of variables grows. To address this problem, we introduce a paired-formula protocol based on minimally different satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances, together with Accurate Differentiation Rate (ADR), which requires both members of each pair to be classified correctly. ADR separates reasoning-oriented models from heuristic ones and correlates with witness validity. Beyond CNF, we test cross-representation consistency by converting CNF to Vertex Cover and 3-SAT to discrete 3D packing. Model decisions on CNF and on the corresponding graph or packing instances agree for most models on more than 80 percent of instances, suggesting stable decision rules across representations. Overall, our results show that SAT is a conservative probe for LLM reasoning, and that paired evaluation with ADR provides a more faithful and representation-robust assessment than conventional metrics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet their standard generation process -- auto-regressive token prediction -- is inherently myopic and prone to cascading errors. To address this, the Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) framework creates a search space over intermediate reasoning steps, allowing search models to explore, look ahead, and backtrack. However, current ToT research remains fragmented across Natural Language Processing and Automated Planning communities, often using inconsistent terminology and ad-hoc implementations. Consequently, we synthesize the ToT landscape through a unified taxonomy based on classical heuristic search terminology. We map LLM-based reasoning to classical search components: state representation (granularity of thoughts), successor generation (prompting operators), and heuristic evaluation (self-assessment of progress). We analyze existing work within the context of our taxonomy and identify emerging design patterns: systematic search (Best-First Search) for shallow, deterministic tasks and lookahead-heavy strategies (DFS, MCTS) for deep multi-step reasoning. We conclude by identifying open algorithmic challenges at the intersection of heuristic search and LLM reasoning, and call on the heuristic search community to engage with this emerging domain.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR) is empirically shown to notably enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), particularly in mathematics and programming. However, the mechanistic role of Sample Difficulty in RLVR remains poorly understood. In this paper, we investigate RLVR through the lens of difficulty-wise and one-sample analysis. We find that sample difficulty has a non-monotonic effect on RLVR: easy and medium-difficulty problems yield the strongest and most stable reasoning improvements, whereas overly hard problems often provide weak learning signals, induce degenerate behaviors such as answer repetition or skipping necessary computation, and can ultimately degrade the model's pre-existing capabilities. Beyond the obverse of response, we further analyze the model's internal feature dynamics using Temporal Sparse Autoencoders (T-SAE). Easy problems mainly reinforce direct-answer and basic-computation features while suppressing deliberative-reasoning features; hard problems activate reasoning-related features but become useful only when successful trajectories are sampled; medium-difficulty problems provide a more balanced signal, strengthening both computation and multi-step reasoning features. Motivated by these findings, we propose difficulty-adaptive strategies for hard-sample utilization, using backward-reasoning reformulation and T-SAE-guided training signals to improve reward density and credit assignment during RLVR. Overall, our results identify sample difficulty as a key factor governing both the optimization dynamics and representation evolution of RLVR.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce explicit reflective traces during complex reasoning, accompanied by anthropomorphic markers such as wait, hmm, and alternatively. Although these markers are commonly used as visible indicators of reflection, their mechanisms remain unclear, which leaves the risk of overthinking associated with redundant and repetitive reflection markers. In this work, we revisit anthropomorphic reflection markers, examining their necessity for reasoning and role in the reflection. We suppress these markers through prompt-level and token-level interventions, and analyze their effects on task performance across four benchmarks and two model scales. Our results show that anthropomorphic markers are not uniformly necessary for reasoning performance: suppressing them can preserve or improve performance in several settings, especially under larger sampling budgets. Meanwhile, marker suppression does not necessarily remove reflection behavior, as models can still perform marker-free verification. These suggest that anthropomorphic markers tend to be surface cues rather than reliable proxies for reflection itself, and motivate future research on reasoning mechanisms beyond explicit marker patterns.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key technique for en- hancing LLM reasoning, yet its data ineffi- ciency remains a major bottleneck. Existing methods address this problem only partially, each missing at least one of subset-level cov- erage, verifier signal use, or interpretability. To address this gap, we present IRDS (Inter- pretable RLVR Data Selection), which selects RLVR training instances on a sparse autoen- coder (SAE) cluster basis so the selection itself is auditable on recognizable problem motifs. To select instances the model both fails on and can still learn from, we introduce a verifier- coupled coverage objective on the SAE basis and solve it by greedy log-determinant max- imization. Experiments on three instruction- tuned models and six math reasoning bench- marks show that IRDS achieves the highest overall accuracy, exceeding the strongest base- line by +3.9/+4.0 pp on the two Qwen models and by +0.5 pp on Llama-3.1-8B, while run- ning an order of magnitude cheaper than the trajectory-based baseline.

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) improves the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by providing dense token-level supervision for on-policy rollouts. However, existing OPSD methods often yield limited gains on in-domain reasoning and generalize poorly to out-of-domain problems. We identify two key causes: conditioning the self-teacher on a verified solution encourages imitation of training-domain reference trajectories rather than error-specific correction, and applying distillation to the full response can overwrite valid reasoning prefixes and reinforce overfitting. We propose Reflective On-policy Self-Distillation (ROSD), a framework that turns reference-solution imitation into targeted reasoning correction through reflection-guided, error-localized distillation. For each rollout, ROSD uses a self-reflector to extract a corrective idea and locate the first erroneous span. The corrective idea guides the self-teacher toward targeted supervision, while the localized error span restricts distillation to where correction is needed. This design corrects flawed reasoning while preserving valid prefixes. Experiments on multiple in-domain and out-of-domain reasoning benchmarks show that ROSD yields stronger in-domain reasoning performance overall and substantially better out-of-domain generalization than standard OPSD. Code is available at https://github.com/ZiqiZhao1/ROSD.

Self-evolving large language models (LLMs) learn by generating their own training tasks and solutions, reducing reliance on human-curated supervision. However, in many reasoning domains, the model must also validate generated tasks and judge generated answers to obtain training signals. This creates a training-signal challenge: erroneous self-judgments become erroneous gradient updates. Existing approaches either rely on external verifiers, which limits generality, or treat noisy self-generated feedback as supervision. We propose COSE (Confidence-Orchestrated Self-Evolution), which uses the LLM's intrinsic confidence as a lightweight uncertainty signal to modulate learning. COSE introduces confidence-weighted PPO updates and confidence-prioritized replay. Across 19 held-out benchmarks and four Qwen/Llama backbones (0.6B--4B), COSE consistently improves over base models and achieves the best average performance in general reasoning and mathematics, while remaining competitive on code. Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/COSE_-B5C2.

Large language models (LLMs) can now solve complex problems through long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but the trade-off between performance and token cost remains a central challenge. To address this issue, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often uses compressed reasoning data, where CoT traces are shortened into compact forms. However, the effect of such compressed reasoning data on post-training remains poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy of CoT consisting of Explicit CoT, which outputs all operations without aggregation, Composed CoT, which combines multiple operations into a single step, and Implicit CoT, which omits intermediate operations. As a controlled mechanistic study, we construct a synthetic compositional reasoning task that allows controlled variation of difficulty, compression granularity, and data size, and conducted a comprehensive set of experiments across different model families and sizes. Notably, we find that (i) coarser CoT requires more SFT data, (ii) compared with Explicit CoT, Composed CoT and Implicit CoT benefit more from data scaling, while Composed CoT benefits from data repetition and Implicit CoT tends to lead to memorization, (iii) unlike SFT, subsequent reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards (RLVR) decomposes compressed steps learned during SFT, and (iv) unidirectional CoT ordering shows stronger generalization on longer sequential tasks. Our findings provide implications for CoT design under data resource constraints and offer important insights into the mechanisms of SFT and RL in LLM post-training.

Understanding how LLMs reason is hindered by a practical asymmetry: while their generated outputs are observable, the underlying reasoning patterns remain opaque. Relying on single probes, such as Mutual Information Peak (MIP) or Deep-Thinking Ratio (DTR), risks underestimating the genuine inferential structure. To response this deficiency, we present an Integrated, cross-Architecture Reasoning (IAR) framework, designed to provide a unified approach to LLM reasoning interpretability. Specifically, we first propose to use bandwidth-calibrated MIP coupled with Tukey IQR peak-detection to isolate reasoning-crucial tokens at the output layer. Second, we performed an overlap analysis between MIP-picked tokens and DTR-deep tokens to trace the cross-layer trajectories of those tokens. This also discloses whether reasoning-crucial tokens are computation-intensive as well, further facilitating to understand how reasoning patterns evolve across model layers. Finally, we apply a Jaccard stability metric over multi-domain problems to verify if the MIP-identified tokens are reasoning quality-guaranteed. Extensive experiments on six models across four domains (mathematics, code, logic, and common sense) demonstrate IAR's generalizable interpretation capabilities across architectures. Our code is available at https://github.com/LeonardoMatthew/IAR.

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance by incorporating functional symbolic representations that abstractly describe graph traversal algorithms and step-by-step reasoning in few-shot learning settings. However, it remains unclear how LLMs genuinely understand the abstract meaning of each reasoning step and the overall algorithm from only a limited number of demonstrations. This work aims to localize the attention heads responsible for individual reasoning steps and characterize the types of information transferred among them. We first align constituent reasoning steps with their corresponding token logits under a symbolic-aided Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting framework. Our analysis shows that token positions that steer the reasoning process are associated with low confidence scores caused by constraints on satisfying reasoning behavior patterns in demonstrations. We then adopt causal mediation analysis techniques to identify the attention heads responsible for these patterns. In addition, our findings indicate that LLMs retrieve factual and rule-based information for individual sub-reasoning tasks through specialized attention heads (approximately 3% total heads), whereas higher layers predominantly facilitate information integration and the emergence of global reasoning strategies (e.g., graph traversal algorithms) that coordinate multiple intermediate reasoning steps to solve the overall task.

Self-Distillation Policy Optimization (SDPO) provides dense token-level credit assignment for reinforcement learning with large language models by leveraging the model's own feedback-conditioned predictions as a self-teacher. Unlike GRPO, however, whose group-relative advantage naturally concentrates learning on a sweet spot of intermediate-difficulty questions, SDPO's KL-based advantage lacks an implicit notion of difficulty awareness. We analyze this gap through the lens of GRPO's advantage normalization. Extending the learnability framework to normalized rewards, we show that normalization absorbs the variance term $p(1-p)$, equalizing leading-order learnability across questions and leaving $\sqrt{p(1-p)}$ as the sole residual scaling factor in the per-question gradient. This analysis yields a simple prescription: weight each question's SDPO loss by $[\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})]^{1/2}$, resulting in SC-SDPO, a scale-consistent variant of SDPO. The proposed weights are obtained as a zero-cost byproduct of on-policy rollouts with batch-adaptive normalization, inducing an implicit curriculum that dynamically tracks the model's evolving competence. Experiments on scientific reasoning and tool-use benchmarks demonstrate that SC-SDPO consistently improves over SDPO, yielding gains of +3.2/+4.3 (mean@16/maj@16) on Qwen3-8B and +1.8/+3.0 on OLMo-3-7B, while preserving stable training dynamics throughout optimization.

Recently, there has been increased interest in Small Language Models (SLMs), which are fast, show good performance, and have lower hardware demands than large language models (LLMs). However, SLMs hallucinate more frequently than LLMs, impacting their ability to solve complex multi-step reasoning problems as early mistakes cascade to the final response. To address this, existing works think-first followed by iterative retrieval to reduce hallucination. We argue that the think-first strategy is not always necessary as we find that: (i) SLMs are often accurately confident in their initial answer and, (ii) hallucinations can actually be beneficial for honing in on the true answer. As such, we position our work as an inversion of this strategy, i.e., answer first-reason later. We propose a cognitively-inspired framework where the model is first allowed to quickly answer the question (System-I (zero-shot)) and then resorts to deeper thinking (System-II) based on evidence retrieved from a knowledge source using the initial hypothesis. By combining System-I and System-II style thinking, we show that our method can outperform prior work that takes the traditional think-first route on various multi-step question-answering benchmarks.

Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning typically focuses on deductive tasks such as mathematics and coding where correctness is verifiable. Yet, many real-world reasoning problems are inductive: agents must infer uncertain beliefs from sparse, ambiguous observations. There are challenges to using standard fine-tuning methods for inductive reasoning, including difficulties in curating large-scale, high-quality labeled datasets and in handling targets that are inherently distributional. In this work, we introduce a novel approach, called Program-based Posterior Training (PPT), to address these limitations: we use an LLM to generate diverse open-world scenarios as probabilistic programs, run probabilistic inference to produce distributional target responses to queries, and then fine-tune on these probabilistic soft labels. Using this approach, we fine-tune LLMs on 10,000 programmatically generated scenarios and evaluate on held-out motifs, human-labeled judgments, and external benchmarks. Overall, PPT substantially improves estimation accuracy on held-out inductive tasks, increases alignment with human judgments, and transfers to external benchmarks for estimation and calibration. Additionally, the gains in raw calibration are not subsumed by post-hoc temperature scaling, showing that the models have more deeply internalized uncertainty compared to output rescaling. Together, these results suggest that probabilistic-program-mediated fine-tuning is a promising approach for post-training LLMs to reliably perform approximate inductive inference.

Significant progress has been made in aligning LLMs with target value functions. We argue that, even when an LLM has been well aligned in (post-)training, it may still fail to maximise the aligned value in reasoning. We mathematically formalise this gap as rational value risk: the utility discrepancy between a model's deployed reasoning strategy and its rational counterpart whose responses maximise utility in the steepest direction. The estimation error of rational value risk is further decomposed into three components from bounded prompts, bounded responses, and imperfect verifiers. Extensive experiments are conducted, covering models Llama-3.1, Qwen-2.5, Tülu-3 families (7B-72B), GPT-5.2, GPT-5.5, and DeepSeek-V4, and benchmarks UltraFeedback, AlpacaEval, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval, and MathArena. The results validate that (1) rational value risk is widespread; (2) value alignment can reduce, but cannot avoid, it; (3) self-consistency can improve rationality; and (4) a longer chain of thought improves rationality but with diminishing returns. The code is at https://github.com/EVIEHub/LLM-Rationality

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed artificial intelligence from primarily generative systems into increasingly capable reasoning agents. Recent advances in theorem proving, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, and tool-augmented language models demonstrate substantial progress toward machine-assisted formal reasoning. However, current reasoning systems still suffer from hidden logical inconsistencies, hallucinated symbolic transitions, unsupported theorem applications, and limited reliability guarantees. Existing approaches remain fragmented across formal verification, runtime assurance, neuro-symbolic reasoning and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) research communities. This paper introduces ReasonOps, a unified operational paradigm for trustworthy verified reasoning systems. Inspired by operational ecosystems such as DevOps and MLOps, ReasonOps treats reasoning as a continuously monitored, verifiable, reliability-aware operational process rather than an isolated inference task. The proposed paradigm integrates semantic interpretation, autoformalization, symbolic reasoning, theorem proving, runtime assurance, probabilistic reliability estimation, and adaptive correction into a unified reasoning lifecycle. The paper further presents the ReasonOps architecture, demonstrates its workflow using an autonomous braking system analysis example, and discusses its potential role in future safety-critical autonomous AI systems. We argue that operational reasoning paradigms such as ReasonOps may become foundational infrastructure for next-generation trustworthy AI ecosystems.

Sampling multiple responses improves language model reasoning, but uniform compute allocation is inefficient: easy questions are over-sampled while hard questions remain under-explored. We propose Uncertainty-Aware Budget Allocation (UAB), a concave integer optimization framework that reallocates a fixed sampling budget based on per-question uncertainty estimated at no additional inference cost. In Phase 1, every question receives one generation; its average negative log-likelihood (ANLL), extracted directly from output log-probabilities, serves as a difficulty signal while the generation contributes to the final vote. In Phase 2, the remaining budget is allocated by a marginal-greedy algorithm that solves a concave coverage-maximization surrogate exactly: uncertain questions receive more sampling budget while confident questions receive fewer additional samples. Evaluated on six open-weight and black-box models spanning 1.5B to 27B parameters and five reasoning benchmarks covering math, logic, and preference tasks, UAB outperforms baselines by up to +3% in average accuracy and up to +5% on individual benchmarks, with the largest gains in low-resource settings, requiring no auxiliary model or additional LLM call. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/manhitv/UAB.

Recent reasoning Large Language Models produce a chain-of-thought (CoT) predominantly in English, even when prompted in non-English languages. Prior work suggests that forcing the CoT to remain in the input language (\emph{native reasoning}) substantially degrades performance relative to allowing the model to reason in English before answering in the input language (\emph{English-pivoted reasoning}). However, most studies of this native reasoning gap rely on inference-time interventions or limited native-language training data. We revisit this comparison at a larger scale and under comparable supervision. We construct long multilingual reasoning datasets across six languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese and Swahili); fine-tune specialists in both native and English-pivoted regimes on top of \texttt{Qwen/Qwen3-8B-Base}, and evaluate across mathematics, science, general knowledge, and code. In this setting, the average native reasoning gap shrinks to 1.9--3.5% across the five non-English languages, considerably smaller than previously reported. Weight-space analysis of the native specialists reveals aligned fine-tuning updates in the middle layers and divergence in the outer layers. This points to a largely language-agnostic reasoning core surrounded by language-specific layers. Exploiting this structure, we introduce a Layer Swap: transferring the English specialist's stronger reasoning mid-layers into each native specialist, closing most of the native reasoning gap across the five non-English languages while preserving CoT in the target language. We release all models and datasets.

Language Models (LMs) emit Chains-of-Thought (CoTs) that drive much of their capability. However, the same sequence that carries useful reasoning can also covertly convey messages: a misaligned model may embed covert information in its CoT that slips through human supervision, a form of steganography known as encoded reasoning. Prior LM steganography schemes operate in the token or lexical space, and a content-preserving paraphraser is the canonical and effective defense in recent work. We introduce conceptual steganography, in which each step of a CoT carries information through patterns of high-level reasoning behavior, rather than through lexical choice. Across four model families and two reasoning domains, this backdoor communication channel is shown to be consistently more robust to a strong paraphrase defense than standard keyword approaches, and the encoding of information into CoTs does not affect their utility in the reasoning process. Having raised awareness of this new risk, we then demonstrate that a strategy-aware paraphraser can close much of the channel, highlighting new challenges and recommended defenses for ensuring faithful LLM reasoning in the wild.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their performance drops when problems are modified with simple changes like different names or numbers. Code execution methods, which let models generate and run Python code instead of reasoning in natural language, have been proposed as a solution, but their effect on reasoning robustness (the ability to maintain accuracy across problem variations) has not been systematically tested. This study evaluates three approaches on 1,000 problems from the GSM-Symbolic dataset: pure reasoning using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, single-shot code execution using Program-Aided Language models (PAL), and iterative code execution using Step-by-Step Coding (SBSC). All three were run on paired original and modified problems using Claude Haiku 4.5. CoT was the most robust method, with an accuracy drop of 1.3 percentage points and 1.8% of problems breaking under perturbation. PAL was the least robust at 1.7 percentage points and 3.1% broke, with SBSC falling in between. Although these differences were not statistically significant ($p = .096$), the directional trend was consistent across all measures, suggesting that code execution, whether single-shot or iterative, does not improve reasoning robustness on grade-school-level problem variations.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to infer others' knowledge, intentions, and emotions, is commonly evaluated in large language models (LLMs) using end-point question answering, where performance is judged solely by the final answer to a social reasoning query. This paradigm obscures whether the model actually constructs the underlying mental-state representations required for robust reasoning, particularly in scenarios involving divergent, evolving, or mistaken beliefs. In order to address this research gap, we introduce OmniToM, a benchmark that directly evaluates these representations by requiring explicit modeling of belief structures for all relevant actors within a narrative. These structures are composed of belief propositions: minimal statements of what an actor takes to be true about the world or another actor's mental state, allowing knowledge, intentions, emotions, and false beliefs to be analyzed in a common format. Models are evaluated in two stages: Stage 1: Belief Extraction, which extracts from the story the beliefs relevant to its social dynamics, and Stage 2: Belief Labeling, which assigns each belief a seven-dimensional schema label covering recursive order, truth status, knowledge access, explicitness, content type, mental source, and context. Built from 895 stories from the existing ToMBench story corpus and augmented with 22,343 labeled belief propositions, OmniToM uses a human-calibrated LLM-assisted annotation pipeline. Across diverse models in zero-shot evaluation, OmniToM reveals an actor-specific belief-tracking bottleneck: current LLMs struggle with the knowledge-access and representational decisions required to transform narrative facts into actors' beliefs and shared mental states.

This paper introduces PolyGnosis 2.0, a pioneering multi-agent architecture designed to extract predictive intelligence by synthesizing Polymarket anomaly signals with global Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) streams, specifically Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT). We define and target "Perspective Mismatches", the narrative divergence between Polymarket sentiment and global media flows, as high-alpha trading signals. Moving beyond generic agentic superiority, we rigorously quantify the efficacy of "Harness Engineering" techniques, including reflection loops, tool-calling, divide-and-conquer partitioning (D&C), and chain-of-thought (CoT), within high-noise financial domains. Our empirical evaluation against human-expert benchmarks reveals that while structural partitioning is mandatory for multi-dimensional alignment, unconstrained terminal reflection actively induces logical drift. Furthermore, we identify a pervasive "consensus bias" across all agent configurations during narrative reasoning, necessitating deterministic validation. Ultimately, we isolate a Pareto-optimal configuration that achieves professional-grade analytical precision while minimizing latency and token overhead, providing a robust blueprint for autonomous intelligence in prediction markets.

Large Language Model interfaces are increasingly verbose, exposing intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers. Traces are framed as transparency mechanisms, yet it is unclear how people use them to solve problems. We report a preregistered between-subjects study (N = 559) in which participants solved ten LSAT-style reasoning problems under one of three conditions: an Answer-only baseline, a Full-trace revealed before the answer, and a Summary-trace presented alongside the answer. Summaries preserved task performance at the no-trace baseline while significantly elevating trust and hedonic appeal, establishing that trace exposure shifts subjective appraisal of the interaction without bringing performance benefits. Under an open-weight reasoning model exposing verbose intermediate output, full traces additionally impaired performance relative to the answer-only baseline. Across all conditions, participants substantially overestimated their performance, and no trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation. Further analysis indicates that hedonic appeal, not trust, carries the indirect path to overestimation, consistent with a processing-fluency account. Reasoning traces are best understood as user-facing interface artifacts rather than transparent windows into model cognition, and calibration is unlikely to emerge from the traces themselves and may best be scaffolded by interactions that elicit users' own reasoning first.

Explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning substantially improves the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs), but incurs high inference cost due to lengthy autoregressive traces. Existing latent reasoning methods offer a promising alternative, yet they often treat reasoning as uniformly compressible, causing precision-critical intermediate steps to be overly compressed and thereby degrading reasoning accuracy. In this work, we propose Selective Latent Thinking (SLT), a framework that selectively compresses redundant reasoning spans into latent representations while preserving precision-critical spans as explicit CoT within the same reasoning trajectory. Specifically, SLT first uses a lightweight decoder to anticipate a short upcoming reasoning span, and then applies confidence-based gating to determine the longest span that can be reliably compressed. The accepted span is encoded into a compact latent representation to improve reasoning efficiency, while uncertain or precision-critical reasoning remains in explicit CoT form to preserve accuracy. To learn this selective compression policy, SLT adopts a three-stage training strategy that combines span-level latent compression, reliability-aware future reasoning prediction, and trajectory-level reinforcement learning to optimize the trade-off between answer correctness and reasoning cost. Extensive experiments across four mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SLT achieves 22.7% higher accuracy than latent reasoning baselines at comparable compression ratios, while reducing reasoning chain length by 58.4% with only 2.8% accuracy degradation compared to explicit CoT,Our code can be found in https://github.com/hunshi34/SLT.

Post-training via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) is crucial for enhancing reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), yet existing paradigms often reach a performance bottleneck due to the limitations of static data. While current methods leverage self-reflection or self-evolution to push these boundaries, they still suffer from cognitive drift and hallucinated reasoning paths caused by low-quality synthetic data. To address these challenges, we propose Anchor Evolution (AnE), a new paradigm that integrates truth-anchored data curation and model evolution, achieving faithful and steady performance gains at the reasoning frontier. Specifically, we propose Truth Anchor Expansion, which pinpoints the model failing frontier via trajectory rollouts and leverages ground-truth databases to retrieve high-fidelity anchors for faithful data curation. Subsequently, we introduce the Scaffold-Stripping Mechanism to internalize reasoning capabilities. This mechanism first anchors reasoning paths via scaffold-augmented supervision to mitigate the learning complexity and distribution drift of direct SFT on raw data, then leverages RL to strip the scaffold template, thereby effectively transitioning the reasoning paths into intrinsic model capabilities. Experimental results on multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that our method substantially advances the model performance frontier, improving the base model by 10.3% across eight multimodal benchmarks and achieving state-of-the-art results. The code will be made publicly available.

Clinical decision-making requires reasoning over incomplete, imprecise, and linguistically expressed patient narratives. While large language models (LLMs) excel at extracting latent information from natural language, they lack the verifiability and interpretability essential for trustworthy medical AI. We propose a neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that aligns LLMs with formal logic to enable explainable and formally verifiable medical diagnosis. Patient descriptions and clinical guidelines are embedded into a neural knowledge base, where LLMs extract structured medical entities, temporal relations, and fuzzy symptom patterns, which are decoded into a symbolic knowledge base expressed in fuzzy logic and declarative rules. We perform two-stage reasoning: (1) inductive symbolic generalization to capture diagnostic patterns from encoded narratives, and (2) inference verification via a logic programming engine to derive and validate diagnoses consistent with clinical standards. Each symptom is treated as a fuzzy predicate with probabilistic weights, and inference paths are auditable, adjustable, and compatible with physician feedback. Unlike purely statistical methods, our system supports iterative refinement: misalignment between LLM-generated diagnoses and ground truth can be traced, explained, and corrected through formal rules. By combining logic-based transparency, LLM adaptability, and probabilistic robustness, the framework enables human-aligned healthcare inference with strong generalization and verifiable, step-by-step reasoning chains. We validate our framework on public benchmarks, demonstrating effective reconciliation of symbolic reasoning and LLMs with real-world clinical narratives. Results show performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLMs, while additionally providing interpretable reasoning paths and formally verifiable diagnostic conclusions.

High-quality expert chain-of-thought (CoT) data is one of the core bottlenecks in large language model (LLM) post-training. Existing data production methods each have structural limitations: crowdsourced annotation lacks deep reasoning paths; expert solo writing is constrained by the "expert blind spot" -- experts structurally skip reasoning steps they consider obvious; RLHF only produces preference signals rather than reasoning chains. This paper proposes the BC Protocol -- a structured dual-expert elicitation method for LLM post-training data production. The method carefully pairs a domain expert (crystallized intelligence) with a knowledge engineer (fluid intelligence), systematically externalizing the expert's implicit judgments as natural language reasoning chains. We introduce the Participant Aptitude Model, which defines six participant characteristic dimensions that affect elicitation quality. "Calibrated Ignorance" is an original concept proposed in this paper. We further propose "Selection-over-Prescription" as a methodological principle: for implicit knowledge elicitation tasks, investing quality-control resources in personnel selection yields a higher return than investing the same resources in process design. In a controlled experiment in the narrative fiction domain, we directly compared CoT produced by BC Protocol dual dialogue (Group A, (n=20)) against CoT written independently by the same domain expert (Group B, (n=20)). Three cross-vendor judge models -- GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro -- conducted blind evaluation across five dimensions (600 ratings total). Results show that the BC Protocol achieves an overwhelming advantage in "naturalness of reasoning process" (Group A mean 4.80 vs. Group B mean 1.30, (p=2.4\times10^{-8}), Cliff's (δ=1.0)).

Contemporary reinforcement learning with verifiable reward methods post-train language models on multi-step reasoning by assigning a single outcome reward uniformly across all tokens in a trajectory. Such uniform assignment ignores which steps contributed to success or failure. Improving credit assignment can address this limitation by enabling targeted refinement of faulty reasoning steps, rather than updating entire trajectories uniformly. Resets are one such simple mechanism, enabling more precise credit assignment by returning to an intermediate state and resampling counterfactual continuations, so that outcome differences can be attributed to decisions made at that point. We propose two such methods: Random-Reset Policy Optimization (RRPO), where reset states are drawn randomly from reasoning steps, and Self-Reset Policy Optimization (SRPO), where the model self-localizes the erroneous step in an incorrect trajectory and resets there. We analyze these methods within the Conservative Policy Iteration (CPI) framework. Extending CPI with a credit-assignment oracle that targets improvable states yields provable improvements over random resets. Across models and reasoning benchmarks, SRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO and RRPO by sampling multiple suffix continuations at a self-localized reset and learning from their rewards, using only the model itself with no external supervision.

While LLMs excel at reasoning over prompts using static pretrained knowledge, they struggle significantly with context learning-the ability to dynamically extract, internalize, and apply new knowledge from complex, task-specific contexts. Recent evaluations on the CL-Bench reveal a critical capability gap: frontier models solve only 17.2% of context-dependent tasks on average.

Knowledge graph (KG) is an abstraction that can be extracted from text corpora and used for in-depth reasoning. Prior work has leveraged KGs to fine-tune language models (LMs), enabling domain-specific superintelligence. In this work, we explore whether KG-driven in-depth reasoning capabilities can emerge in neuroscience using only information contained within a single authoritative textbook. The central hypothesis is that structured knowledge, when distilled into a high-quality KG and converted into KG-grounded question-answer (QA) supervision, is sufficient to produce expert-level reasoning through a fine-tuned LM that surpasses large language models (LLMs) in accuracy, while employing orders of magnitude fewer parameters. We construct a textbook-derived KG via a dual-LLM validation pipeline, expand it with a masked LM trained on the KG topology, generate multi-hop QA items, which include QA pairs and reasoning traces, to fine-tune an LM exclusively on KG-derived supervision, and apply reinforcement learning using path-derived KG signals as implicit reward models. Our results demonstrate that deep, mechanistic neuroscience understanding can be induced in the model without reliance on large, heterogeneous web-scale corpora. The KG-based synthetic neuroscience curriculum that readers can quiz themselves on, and the fine-tuned LM, are available at the following GitHub location: https://kg-bottom-up-superintelligence.github.io/neuro-bench.

Despite the importance of causal reasoning, training LLMs to reason causally remains underexplored. Existing data efforts mostly focus on benchmarking LLMs on specific aspects of causality, making them less suitable for training generalizable causal reasoners. To address this, we propose UniCo, a data generation framework that both (1) addresses 18 causal query types across Pearl's Causal Ladder and (2) translates natively symbolic examples into code and natural language forms to simulate real-world use cases where causal terms are not explicitly specified. To ensure data quality, UniCo grounds answers with exact causal inference and filters cases with reasoning shortcuts. Upon supervised finetuning with 66.6K UniCo-generated instances, Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B and Olmo-3-7B-Instruct achieve an average of 22.9% improvements across all 18 in-distribution query types, and 8.1% over state-of-the-art causal data generation frameworks on 7 established causal benchmarks outside the training distribution. More importantly, in real-world medical understanding, legal decision, and tabular reasoning, UniCo-trained models consistently display more faithful reasoning traces, outperforming the base models by an average of 20.2% in faithfulness metrics. These suggest that causality-centered training not only strengthens causal reasoning, but also equips LLMs with a causal mindset in general reasoning tasks.

While general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) applied to Geology often hallucinate when reasoning about subsurface structures and deep-time evolution, current AI in Earth sciences predominantly targets surface remote sensing and GIS. To bridge this gap, we introduce Geo-Expert, a family of parameter-efficient geological LLMs fine-tuned on a custom-curated, high-quality instruction dataset processed using our custom instruction synthesis pipeline. We investigate the impact of model scaling and architecture by fine-tuning three base models: Qwen3-8B, Qwen3-32B, and Gemma-3-27B, with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) method. Our extensive evaluation on a novel domain-specific benchmark, Geo-Eval, reveals that a domain-aligned 8B model can outperform open-weight 70B generalists and proprietary GPT-4o on specialized geological reasoning, while a 32B variant approaches frontier reasoning models. The optimized 8B model further offers a competitive cost-performance ratio for deployment. This work provides a reproducible recipe for democratizing scientific LLMs and establishes a baseline for geological artificial intelligence.

Medical large language models hold promise for reducing healthcare disparities, yet Hindi remains severely underrepresented. While medical LLMs excel in high-resource languages, their performance degrades sharply in Hindi, particularly on Indian systems of medicine. We argue that robust cross-lingual medical transfer requires Hindi reasoning. To this end, we introduce HiMed, a Hindi reasoning medical corpus and benchmark suite covering both Western and Indian medicine. We further propose HiMed-8B, a Hindi-form medical reasoning LLM, through the design of decaying scaffolding reward. Extensive experiments demonstrate improvement in Hindi medical reasoning performance and reduction in the English--Hindi accuracy gap. Ablation studies validate the contribution of each training stage and reward component. All data and code are available on GitHub: https://github.com/FreedomIntelligence/HiMed.

Post-hoc repair of LLM mathematical reasoning introduces an asymmetric risk: fixing an incorrect reasoning trace is useful, but replacing a trace that was already correct can be harmful. We study this problem under a selective replacement setting, where a system must decide whether a repaired candidate is safer than preserving the original cached trace. We present GuardedRepair, a guarded best-of-N repair framework that diagnoses cached reasoning traces, selectively triggers repair, and accepts answer-changing candidates only when deterministic verification guards support replacement. The framework combines lightweight symbolic checks, surface semantic-risk diagnostics, bounded candidate generation, and conservative acceptance policies. On the full GSM8K test set, where the initial reasoner already achieves 95.60% accuracy, GuardedRepair improves final accuracy to 96.89%, fixing 17 of 58 remaining errors without measured broken-correct cases in the main run. On a weak-reasoner ASDiv setting, accuracy improves from 78.40% to 87.60%. Direct regeneration baselines show that this gain is not explained by stronger-model re-solving alone: re-solving all GSM8K examples lowers accuracy to 93.03% and breaks 47 initially correct answers. Additional analyses show that guarded repair substantially improves the fixed/broken tradeoff, while also revealing that replacement risk is reduced rather than eliminated. These results support viewing post-hoc repair as harm-aware selective replacement rather than unconstrained re-solving.

Many applications of large language models (LLMs) require deductive reasoning, yet models frequently produce incorrect or redundant inference steps. We frame natural language inference as a search problem where the final answer is the valid proof itself, requiring a reasoning procedure in which intermediate inferences are correct. Specifically, we investigate whether LLMs can learn to generate correct and efficient proofs with guidance from A* search -- an algorithm that guarantees an optimally efficient path to a goal. We explore two training techniques: supervised fine-tuning on execution traces from A* and reinforcement learning with A*-informed process reward models. Empirically, we find that Llama-3.2 models in the 1B--3B range benefit substantially from A* post training, going from near-zero accuracy to outperforming DeepSeek-V3.2 -- a much larger model. Our analysis uncovers a trade-off: while simple correctness rewards maximize accuracy, A*-informed signals strike a balance between accuracy and efficiency. Furthermore, we find that on larger search spaces, models trained with imperfect heuristics exhibit superior accuracy. Our results demonstrate a promising direction towards reasoning guided by principles derived from classical search algorithms.

Efficiently updating Large Language Models (LLMs) with new or evolving factual knowledge remains a central challenge, as even parameter-efficient adaptation can erode previously acquired reasoning abilities. This tension reflects a plasticity-stability dilemma: models must incorporate new knowledge while preserving skill-critical representations. In this work, we study this trade-off through the spectral structure of multilayer perceptron weight matrices. We show, both theoretically and empirically, that information essential for reasoning is not localized only in dominant singular directions, but is instead distributed across the singular spectrum. Motivated by this observation, we introduce PALoRA, a two-stage framework for knowledge injection with reduced interference. PALoRA first trains a Singular Value Fine-Tuning (SVF) expert on a reasoning dataset and uses its learned singular scaling vector as a frozen geometric probe to identify components that are critical for the target skill. It then performs factual knowledge injection with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) under a structural orthogonality constraint, ensuring that updates avoid the identified skill-relevant subspace. Across Llama 3.1 8B and Mistral 7B, and across mathematical, coding, and scientific reasoning benchmarks, PALoRA preserves on average 95% of the SVF expert's reasoning performance while maintaining competitive factual recall. It consistently improves skill retention over prior spectral Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods while adding less than 0.006% parameter overhead.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can improve LLM reasoning, but learning remains sample-inefficient when terminal rewards are sparse. This has motivated a growing line of work on RL with textual feedback, where a critic model generates natural language feedback to guide a reasoning model (the actor), augmenting scalar rewards with richer learning signals. However, existing methods typically treat feedback as fixed or auxiliary, which misses a key property: feedback should not merely be correct, but should improve the policy (actor model) when provided in context. This motivates a paradigm of learnable textual feedback for RL. Yet the learnability and usefulness of feedback depend on the policy's ability to learn from it, making RL with learnable feedback an inherently bilevel problem. We formalize this coupling as a Stackelberg bilevel program and derive Bilevel Natural Language Actor-Critic (Bi-NAC), which jointly trains a critic to generate reward-improving feedback and an actor to exploit it. Across MATH-500, MBPP, and GPQA, Bi-NAC improves sample and parameter efficiency over RL and fixed-critic baselines: our 2B model outperforms the 3B GRPO baseline, achieving 46.6% versus 41.4% on MATH-500, while our 6B model surpasses the 7B GRPO baseline, achieving 49.3% versus 43.6% on GPQA.

Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute. Improving reasoning quality directly would require process reward models, but the step-level annotations needed to train them are expensive and scarce. We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning: premature confidence, the tendency to commit to an answer early and use the remaining tokens to rationalize it, strongly predicts flawed reasoning across tasks and model scales. We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early -- rewarding gradual confidence growth and penalizing early commitment, with no external labels or reward models. The method improves accuracy and reasoning quality from 1.5B to 8B parameters across arithmetic (Countdown), math (DAPO, AIME), and science (ScienceQA): on Countdown, accuracy improves 3.2x (+42.0pp) and flawed reasoning drops 48pp; on AIME, Pass@64 improves 6.6pp. Consistent with this mechanism, the method also improves faithfulness: on a safety benchmark, our models more transparently surface misleading content in their reasoning traces rather than concealing it. Controlled experiments reveal that the problem and its remedy scale together: premature confidence grows with model size and task difficulty, and so do the gains from addressing it.

Context or prompt-level reweighting has emerged as a central algorithmic lever in Reinforcement Learning with Verified Rewards (RLVR) for improving the reasoning capability of large language models, yet the principle determining what constitutes an optimal weighting remains poorly understood. We address this gap by formulating prompt reweighting as a functional derivative of a utility functional defined in the pass-rate function space, yielding a unified optimality framework that accommodates existing schemes, including REINFORCE and GRPO. Building on this optimality framework, we propose a distribution-aware prompt reweighting approach, called CurveRL, based on a quantile coordinate transform, in which the weight assigned to each prompt depends not on the absolute value of pass rates but on its rank and density to reflect the distributional structure of the pass rates in the learning dynamics. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed CurveRL consistently outperforms GRPO and other RLVR baselines. Our study identifies context-distribution control as a principled axis for analyzing and designing prompt-reweighted RLVR algorithms. The code is released in https://github.com/zhyzmath/CurveRL.

Standard accuracy on binary reasoning benchmarks hides critical failure modes: prior collapse, inconsistency under paraphrase, and inability to reason about parameter-dependent dynamics. We present ChaosBench-Logic v2, a 40,886-question benchmark over 165 dynamical systems with 27 FOL predicates and 78 axiom edges, together with CARE (Calibration- and Adversarial-Robust Evaluation), a protocol that surfaces these pathologies. Evaluating 14 models, we find that regime-transition reasoning remains near random (MCC = 0.05) even for frontier models, whereas FOL deduction with given premises reaches MCC = 0.52. Per-family decomposition shows that the proprietary-model advantage concentrates on cross-indicator (+0.40) and consistency tasks, while open-source Qwen 2.5-32B dominates indicator diagnostics (0.91 vs. 0.45). Two models exhibit negative MCC on bifurcation questions, confirmed as systematic anti-correlation via confusion-matrix analysis.

Multi-step reasoning remains a central challenge for large language models: single-pass generation is efficient but lacks accuracy; tree-search methods explore multiple paths but are computation-heavy. We address this gap by distilling reasoning progress into a hyperbolic geometric signal that guides step-by-step generation. Our approach is motivated by a structural observation: in combinatorial reasoning trees, solution-bearing states are few while dead ends are exponentially numerous. The hyperbolic space matches this asymmetry, with compact volume near the origin and exponentially expanding capacity toward the boundary, so that distance-to-origin naturally encodes solution proximity while angular separation distinguishes branches requiring different next operations. We train a lightweight head to project LLM hidden states into this space, then fine-tune a low-rank adapter interactively on its own reasoning attempts to act on the injected signal. Across multiple benchmarks, the geometric signal yields consistent gains, with larger improvements on deeper reasoning chains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/yuyuliu11037/HyperGuide.

Recent RL methods have substantially improved the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Existing reward designs mainly follow two paradigms: (1) Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) derives outcome signals from executable checks or ground-truth answers, but provides limited guidance for intermediate reasoning behaviors. (2) Rubrics-as-reward (RaR) goes beyond final-answer checking by using natural-language rubrics to assess reasoning quality and task compliance, but often requires instance-specific rubrics and substantial design effort. To address these issues, we introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework that guides LLM reasoning through two general process dimensions: i) metacognitive knowledge, which identifies task-relevant information without hand-crafted instance-specific rubrics, and ii) metacognitive regulation, which plans and adjusts the reasoning process to provide reward guidance beyond final-answer outcomes. MaR scaffolds model rollouts into explicit metacognitive components and optimizes them with a trajectory-level reward over task knowledge coverage, regulation fidelity, and final-answer correctness. In this way, MaR extends reward feedback to reasoning trajectories while grounding the reward signals in general metacognitive dimensions. Experiments on 22 benchmarks show that MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model and up to an 11.0% gain over vanilla DAPO. Notably, Qwen3.5-9B + MaR narrows the gap to frontier models, surpassing GPT-OSS-120B on overall average and outperforming stronger models on several individual benchmarks. Process-level analysis further shows substantial improvements in reasoning process quality. MaR also generalizes to out-of-domain datasets, where MaR-trained models improve over their corresponding base models on average.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a paradigm for grounding large language models in external knowledge, yet most existing RAG systems assume centralized knowledge access and ample computation. These assumptions break down in edge environments, where knowledge is fragmented across devices, raw data cannot be shared, and repeated LLM calls are prohibitively expensive. We propose FD-RAG, a federated dual-system RAG framework that decouples lightweight memory access from on-demand LLM reasoning for decentralized deployment. Specifically, FD-RAG learns semantic-aware adaptive hypergraphs over local corpora and distills them into compact QA memories. At inference time, it answers well-covered queries via direct memory matching and invokes LLM-based reasoning only when necessary, while tracing retrieved memories to hypergraph-grounded evidence. To mitigate cross-device knowledge fragmentation, FD-RAG aggregates anonymized memories across devices without exposing raw documents. Experiments on QA benchmarks show that FD-RAG improves accuracy by up to 7.8% while reducing latency by 8.4$\times$ compared with strong local and federated baselines. We also provide theoretical analysis establishing an $\mathcal{O}(1/ε^{2})$ convergence rate for the proposed hypergraph learning, supporting its tractable deployment in edge settings.

Persuasive dialogue requires reasoning about others' latent mental states, a capability known as Theory of Mind (ToM). However, due to reliance on simple prompting strategies and insufficient ToM knowledge, existing LLMs often fail to capture the intrinsic dependencies among mental states, leading to fragmented representations and unstable reasoning. To address these challenges, we introduce the ToM-based Persuasive Dialogue (ToM-PD) task, grounded in the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) framework, which explicitly models the sequential dependencies among mental states in multi-turn dialogues. To facilitate research on this task, we construct a large-scale annotated dataset, ToM-based Broad Persuasive Dialogues (ToM-BPD), capturing fine-grained mental states and corresponding persuasive strategies. We further propose Think Thrice Before You Speak (TTBYS), a knowledge-enhanced stepwise reasoning framework that leverages both explicit and implicit prior experiences to improve LLMs' inference of desires, beliefs, and persuasive strategies. Experimental results demonstrate that Qwen3-8B equipped with TTBYS outperforms GPT-5 by 1.20%, 22.80%, and 16.97% in predicting desires, beliefs, and persuasive strategies, respectively. Case studies further show that our approach enhances interpretability and consistency in reasoning.

Reinforcement learning has proven effective for enhancing multi-step reasoning in large language models (LLMs), yet its benefits have not fully translated to multilingual contexts. Existing methods struggle with a fundamental trade-off: prioritizing input-language consistency severely hampers reasoning quality, while prioritizing reasoning often leads to unintended language drift toward English. We address this challenge with LANG, a novel framework that leverages language-conditioned hints to guide exploration in non-English reasoning tasks. Our method incorporates two key mechanisms to prevent dependency on these hints: a progressive decay schedule that gradually withdraws scaffolding, and a language-adaptive switch that tailors learning horizons to specific language difficulties. Empirical results on challenging multilingual mathematical benchmarks reveal that LANG substantially enhances reasoning performance without compromising language consistency. Moreover, we show that our framework generalizes beyond mathematics, fostering more consistent language alignment across model layers