Large Language Model Reasoning

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for mental health applications, recent studies reveal that they can exhibit stigma toward individuals with psychological conditions. Existing evaluations of this stigma primarily rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), which fail to capture the biases embedded within the models' underlying logic. In this paper, we analyze the intermediate reasoning steps of LLMs to uncover hidden stigmatizing language and the internal rationales driving it. We leverage clinical expertise to categorize common patterns of stigmatizing language directed at individuals with psychological conditions and use this framework to identify and tag problematic statements in LLM reasoning. Furthermore, we rate the severity of these statements, distinguishing between overt prejudice and more subtle, less immediately harmful biases. To broaden the reasoning domain and capture a wider array of patterns, we also extend an existing mental health stigma benchmark by incorporating additional psychological conditions. Our findings demonstrate that evaluating model reasoning not only exposes substantially more stigma than traditional MCQ-based methods but also helps identify the flaws in the LLMs' logic and their understanding of mental health conditions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) solve many reasoning tasks via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, but smaller models (about 7 to 8B parameters) still struggle with multi-step reasoning under tight compute and token budgets. Existing test time reasoning methods such as self consistency (sampling multiple rationales and voting), Tree-of-Thoughts (search over intermediate thoughts), and critique revise loops improve performance, but often at high token cost and without fine-grained step-level control. This project1 aims to address that gap: can Small Language Models (SLMs) reason reliably using the same or fewer tokens? This question is both scientific and practical. Scientifically, it probes whether process supervision and simple test-time controls (such as token budgets and rejection of redundant steps) can substitute for model scale or large sampling counts. Practically, many deployments (on-device, low-latency, or cost-constrained settings) cannot afford huge models or dozens of sampled rationales per query. A method that improves SLM reasoning at fixed cost would therefore be directly useful.

Knowledge graph (KG) reasoning infers new knowledge from existing facts and is widely applied in question answering, recommendation, and decision support. With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), LLM-based KG reasoning frameworks have become increasingly popular by leveraging retrieved KG information. However, hallucinations in LLMs remain a critical issue. Even when relevant KG knowledge is incorporated, models may still generate incorrect outputs, leading to misinformation and unreliable decisions. Existing hallucination detection methods either focus on LLM internal states or verify consistency with retrieved contexts, but both overlook the structural information in KGs, resulting in suboptimal performance. To address this gap, we propose LUCID, the first halLUcination deteCtIon method for LLM-based knowleDge graph reasoning frameworks. LUCID jointly leverages LLM attention scores, KG semantics, and structural information. Specifically, it extracts node and edge features from attention scores and semantic similarities, and integrates them with KG structure using a graph neural network. We also construct manually annotated benchmark datasets for evaluation. Experiments on nine datasets show that LUCID achieves state of the art performance compared to 15 baselines.

Large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities in general knowledge question answering. However, their ability to handle temporal information remains limited. To address this limitation, existing approaches often involve external tools or manual verification and are tailored to specific scenarios, leading to poor generalizability. Moreover, these methods apply a fixed pipeline to all questions, overlooking the fact that different types of temporal questions require distinct reasoning strategies, which leads to unnecessary processing for simple cases and inadequate reasoning for complex ones. To this end, we propose AdapTime, an adaptive temporal reasoning method that dynamically executes reasoning steps based on the input context. Specifically, it involves three temporal reasoning actions: reformulate, rewrite and review, with an LLM planner guiding the reasoning process. AdapTime integrates seamlessly with state-of-the-art LLMs and significantly enhances their temporal reasoning capabilities without relying on external support. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

Curriculum learning helps language models tackle complex reasoning by gradually increasing task difficulty. However, it often fails to generate consistent step-by-step reasoning, especially in multilingual and low-resource settings where cross-lingual transfer from English to Indian languages remains limited. We propose IRIS: Interleaved Reinforcement with Incremental Staged Curriculum, a two-axis framework that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning on progressively harder problems (vertical axis) with Reverse Curriculum Reinforcement Learning to reduce reliance on step-by-step guidance (horizontal axis). We design a composite reward combining correctness, step-wise alignment, continuity, and numeric incentives, optimized via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We release CL-Math, a dataset of 29k problems with step-level annotations in English, Hindi, and Marathi. Across standard benchmarks and curated multilingual test sets, IRIS consistently improves performance, with strong results on math reasoning tasks and substantial gains in low-resource and bilingual settings, alongside modest improvements in high-resource languages.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance by allocating substantial computation at inference time, often generating long and verbose reasoning traces. While recent work on efficient reasoning reduces this overhead through length-based rewards or pruning, many approaches are post-trained under a much shorter context window than base-model training, a factor whose effect has not been systematically isolated. We first show that short-context post-training alone, using standard GRPO without any length-aware objective, already induces substantial reasoning compression-but at the cost of increasingly unstable training dynamics and accuracy degradation. To address this, we propose Step-level Advantage Selection (SAS), which operates at the reasoning-step level and assigns a zero advantage to low-confidence steps in correct rollouts and to high-confidence steps in verifier-failed rollouts, where failures often arise from truncation or verifier issues rather than incorrect reasoning. Across diverse mathematical and general reasoning benchmarks, SAS improves average Pass@1 accuracy by 0.86 points over the strongest length-aware baseline while reducing average reasoning length by 16.3%, yielding a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at multi-step reasoning but incur substantial inference cost. We introduce Causal Attribution Pruning (CAP), a training-free method that identifies critical attention heads by measuring their causal impact on reasoning tasks and uses these head-level scores to guide fine-grained weight pruning. For each attention head, CAP estimates the expected performance degradation when the head is masked during forward passes on a small calibration set of reasoning problems. These causal scores are then converted into weight-level importance values for the corresponding projection matrices. Unlike magnitude-only or activation-based criteria, CAP's interventional measurement directly captures each head's functional contribution, yielding relative accuracy gains of up to 61% over Wanda on ARC-Challenge at 20% sparsity. We evaluate CAP on GSM8K, StrategyQA, and ARC-Challenge using Llama-3-8B-Instruct and Mistral-7B-Instruct at 10%, 20%, and 50% sparsity. At moderate sparsity (10-20%), CAP improves over Wanda in most model-benchmark configurations. with especially large gains on ARC-Challenge for Llama-3. Our results suggest that attention-head-level causal attribution can better preserve reasoning performance on downstream benchmarks than correlational pruning criteria at equivalent sparsity, while remaining limited by coarse MLP attribution at 50% sparsity.

Logical reasoning serve as a central capability in LLMs and includes three main forms: deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. In this work, we study the knowledge representations of these reasoning types in LLMs and analyze the correlations among them. Our analysis shows that each form of logical reasoning can be captured as a reasoning-specific knowledge vector in a linear representation space, yet these vectors are largely independent of each other. Motivated by cognitive science theory that these subforms of logical reasoning interact closely in the human brain, as well as our observation that the reasoning process for one type can benefit from the reasoning chain produced by another, we further propose to refine the knowledge representations of each reasoning type in LLMs to encourage complementarity between them. To this end, we design a complementary subspace-constrained refinement framework, which introduces a complementary loss that enables each reasoning vector to leverage auxiliary knowledge from the others, and a subspace constraint loss that prevents erasure of their unique characteristics. Through steering experiments along reasoning vectors, we find that refined vectors incorporating complementary knowledge yield consistent performance gains. We also conduct a mechanism-interpretability analysis of each reasoning vector, revealing insights into the shared and specific features of different reasoning in LLMs.

Small language models (SLMs) are promising for real-world deployment due to their efficiency and low operational cost. However, their limited capacity struggles with high-stakes legal reasoning tasks that require coherent statute interpretation and logically consistent deduction. Furthermore, training SLMs for such tasks demands high-quality, concise reasoning trajectories, which are prohibitively expensive to manually collect and difficult to curate via standard rejection sampling, lacking granularity beyond final verdicts. To address these challenges, we propose {LegalDrill}, a diagnosis-driven synthesis framework that extracts and iteratively refines reasoning trajectories from a capable teacher via fine-grained prompting, then a self-reflective verification is employed to adaptively select the most effective data for the SLM student. The resulting data empower SLM training through supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization. Extensive experiments on several legal benchmarks demonstrate that {LegalDrill} significantly bolsters the legal reasoning capabilities of representative SLMs while bypassing the need for scarce expert annotations, paving a scalable path toward practical legal reasoning systems.

Recent mixed-policy optimization methods for LLM reasoning that interleave or blend supervised and reinforcement learning signals report improvements over the standard SFT-then-RL pipeline. We show that numerous recently published research papers rely on a faulty baseline caused by two distinct bugs: a CPU-offloaded optimizer bug in DeepSpeed that silently drops intermediate micro-batches during gradient accumulation (affecting multiple downstream frameworks including TRL, OpenRLHF and Llama-Factory), and a loss aggregation bug in OpenRLHF that incorrectly weights per-mini-batch losses. Together they suppress SFT performance, with the optimizer bug accounting for most of the gap and the loss aggregation bug contributing a smaller additional effect. Once corrected, the standard SFT-then-RL pipeline surpasses every published mixed-policy method we evaluate by +3.8 points on math benchmarks with Qwen2.5-Math-7B and by +22.2 points with Llama-3.1-8B. Even a truncated variant with just 50 RL steps outperforms mixed-policy methods on math benchmarks while using fewer FLOPs.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed the rise of reasoning-intensive inference paradigms, where models perform explicit step-by-step reasoning before generating final answers. While such approaches improve answer quality and interpretability, they incur substantial computational overhead due to the prolonged generation sequences. In this paper, we propose Tandem, a novel collaborative framework that synergizes large and small language models (LLMs and SLMs) to achieve high-quality reasoning with significantly reduced computational cost. Specifically, the LLM serves as a strategic coordinator, efficiently generating a compact set of critical reasoning insights. These insights are then used to guide a smaller, more efficient SLM in executing the full reasoning process and delivering the final response. To balance efficiency and reliability, Tandem introduces a cost-aware termination mechanism that adaptively determines when sufficient reasoning guidance has been accumulated, enabling early stopping of the LLM's generation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks demonstrate that Tandem reduces computational costs by approximately 40% compared to standalone LLM reasoning, while achieving superior or competitive performance. Furthermore, the sufficiency classifier trained on one domain transfers effectively to others without retraining. The code is available at: https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/ACL2026_Tandem.

Scaling test-time computation with reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a reliable path to improve large language models (LLM) reasoning ability. Yet, outcome-based reward often incentivizes models to be overconfident, leading to hallucinations, unreliable confidence-based control, and unnecessary compute allocation. We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Confidence Margin (\textbf{RLCM}), a calibration-aware RL framework that jointly optimizes correctness and confidence reliability via a margin-enhanced process reward over intermediate-budget completions. Rather than aligning confidence to correctness likelihoods, RLCM encourages to widen the confidence margin between correct and incorrect steps within a single reasoning trajectory. Across mathematical, code, logic and science benchmarks, our method substantially improves calibration while maintaining or improving accuracy. We further show that, with calibrated confidence signals, the resulting models enable more efficient conformal risk control and effective confidence-weighted aggregation.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a simple and effective way to elicit step-by-step solutions from large language models (LLMs). However, CoT reasoning can be unstable across runs on long, multi-step problems, leading to inconsistent answers for unchanged task. Most prior work focuses on improving the forward reasoning chain within a single pass, with less attention to iterative and contrastive correction. To address this gap, we propose CAP-CoT, a Cycle Adversarial Prompt optimization framework designed to improve both CoT reasoning accuracy and stability of a single deployed solver. In each cycle, a forward solver generates candidate reasoning chains, an adversarial challenger constructs plausible but deliberately flawed chains using targeted error strategies, and a feedback agent contrasts the two chains and produces step-aligned structured feedback. This feedback closes the optimization loop in two directions, including updating the solver prompt based on errors exposed by the challenger, and updating the challenger prompt to generate increasingly targeted errors in subsequent cycles. Unlike safety-oriented adversarial prompting such as jailbreak or prompt-injection attacks, our adversarial component is task-semantic and aims to expose logical vulnerabilities in reasoning chains. Experiments across six benchmarks and four LLM backbones demonstrate that within two to three adversarial prompt optimization cycles, CAP-CoT consistently reduces variability across runs while improving reasoning accuracy and robustness to prompt perturbations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in various complex reasoning tasks due to their excellent instruction following capability. However, the model's performance is highly dependent on the open-ended characteristics of the users' input prompt. Natural prompts often do not follow proper syntactic rules, which creates ambiguous queries that yield multiple interpretations. Such ambiguous prompts confuse the model in choosing the correct reasoning paths to answer questions. Prior works address this challenge by applying query editing during the LLM inference process without explicitly solving the root cause of the ambiguity. To address this limitation, we propose a pre-inference prompt optimization mechanism via explicit prompt disambiguation. Particularly, we identify semantic risks in the prompt, check their multi-perspective consistency, and resolve any semantic conflicts that arise. Finally, we organize the resolved ambiguities in a logically structured manner as a clean input to the LLM. By explicitly resolving semantic ambiguity, our method can produce a more focused attention distribution to the semantically essential tokens. We also leverage small language models (SLMs) as the main executor of prompt disambiguation to benefit from their efficient computation. Through comprehensive experiments on multiple benchmarks, we demonstrate that our method improves reasoning performance by 2.5 points at a cost of only $0.02. Our study promotes explicit prompt disambiguation as an effective prompt optimization method without disturbing the internal mechanism of LLM inference.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly tasked with complex real-world analysis (e.g., in financial forecasting, scientific discovery), yet their reasoning suffers from stochastic instability and lacks a verifiable, compositional structure. To address this, we introduce Analytica, a novel agent architecture built on the principle of Soft Propositional Reasoning (SPR). SPR reframes complex analysis as a structured process of estimating the soft truth values of different outcome propositions, allowing us to formally model and minimize the estimation error in terms of its bias and variance. Analytica operationalizes this through a parallel, divide-and-conquer framework that systematically reduces both sources of error. To reduce bias, problems are first decomposed into a tree of subpropositions, and tool-equipped LLM grounder agents are employed, including a novel Jupyter Notebook agent for data-driven analysis, that help to validate and score facts. To reduce variance, Analytica recursively synthesizes these grounded leaves using robust linear models that average out stochastic noise with superior efficiency, scalability, and enable interactive "what-if" scenario analysis. Our theoretical and empirical results on economic, financial, and political forecasting tasks show that Analytica improves 15.84% accuracy on average over diverse base models, achieving 71.06% accuracy with the lowest variance of 6.02% when working with a Deep Research grounder. Our Jupyter Notebook grounder shows strong cost-effectiveness that achieves a close 70.11% accuracy with 90.35% less cost and 52.85% less time. Analytica also exhibits highly noise-resilient and stable performance growth as the analysis depth increases, with a near-linear time complexity, as well as good adaptivity to open-weight LLMs and scientific domains.

We investigate whether explicit belief graphs improve LLM performance in cooperative multi-agent reasoning. Through 3,000+ controlled trials across four LLM families in the cooperative card game Hanabi, we establish four findings. First, integration architecture determines whether belief graphs provide value: as prompt context, graphs are decorative for strong models and beneficial only for weak models on 2nd-order Theory of Mind (80% vs 10%, p<0.0001, OR=36.0); when graphs gate action selection through ranked shortlists, they become structurally essential even for strong models (100% vs 20% on 2nd-order ToM, p<0.001). Second, we identify "Planner Defiance," a model-family-specific failure where LLMs override correct planner recommendations at partial competence (90% override, replicated N=20); Gemini models show near-zero defiance while Llama 70B shows 90%, and models distinguish factual context (deferred to) from advisory recommendations (overridden). Third, full-game evidence confirms inter-agent conventions (+128% over baseline, p=0.003) outperform all single-agent interventions, and individual belief-graph components must be combined to produce gains. Fourth, preliminary scaling analysis (N=10/cell, exploratory) suggests graph depth has diminishing returns: shallow graphs provide the best cost-benefit ratio, while deeper ToM graphs appear harmful at larger player counts (-1.5 pts at 5-player, p=0.029).

Predicting the outcomes of prospective clinical trials remains a major challenge for large language models. Prior work has shown that both traditional correlational predictors, such as random forests and logistic regression, and strong commercial LLMs achieve limited performance on this task. In this paper, we propose DeepImagine, a framework for teaching LLMs biomedical reasoning through successive counterfactual imagining. The central idea is to approximate hidden causal mechanisms of clinical trials by training models to infer how observed trial results would change under controlled perturbations of experimental conditions, such as dosage, outcome measures, study arms, geography, and other trial attributes. To support this objective, we construct both natural and approximate counterfactual pairs from real clinical trials with reported outcomes. For settings where strict counterfactual supervision is available, such as paired outcome measures or dose-ranging study arms within the same trial, we train models with supervised fine-tuning. For broader settings where only approximate counterfactual pairs can be retrieved, we optimize models with reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards based on downstream benchmark correctness. We further augment training with synthetic reasoning traces that provide causally plausible explanations for local counterfactual transitions. Using this pipeline, we train language models under 10B parameters, including Qwen3.5-9B, and evaluate them on clinical trial outcome prediction. We aim to show that DeepImagine consistently improves over untuned language models and traditional correlational baselines. Finally, we aim to show that the learned reasoning trajectories provide interpretable signals about how models represent trial-level mechanisms, suggesting a practical path toward more mechanistic and scientifically useful biomedical language models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can reason well, yet often miss decisive evidence when it is buried in long, noisy contexts. We introduce HiLight, an Evidence Emphasis framework that decouples evidence selection from reasoning for frozen LLM solvers. HiLight avoids compressing or rewriting the input, which can discard or distort evidence, by training a lightweight Emphasis Actor to insert minimal highlight tags around pivotal spans in the unaltered context. A frozen Solver then performs downstream reasoning on the emphasized input. We cast highlighting as a weakly supervised decision-making problem and optimize the Actor with reinforcement learning using only the Solver's task reward, requiring no evidence labels and no access to or modification of the Solver. Across sequential recommendation and long-context question answering, HiLight consistently improves performance over strong prompt-based and automated prompt-optimization baselines. The learned emphasis policy transfers zero-shot to both smaller and larger unseen Solver families, including an API-based Solver, suggesting that the Actor captures genuine, reusable evidence structure rather than overfitting to a single backbone.

Large Language Models often achieve strong performance by generating long intermediate chain-of-thought reasoning. However, it remains unclear when a model's final answer is actually determined during generation. If the answer is already fixed at an intermediate stage, subsequent reasoning tokens may constitute post-decision explanation, increasing inference cost and latency without improving correctness. We study the evolution of predicted answers over reasoning steps using forced answer completion, which elicits the model's intermediate predictions at partial reasoning prefixes. Focusing on Qwen3-4B and averaging results across all datasets considered, we find that predicted answers change in only 32% of queries. Moreover, once the final answer switch occurs, the model generates an average of 760 additional reasoning tokens per query, accounting for a substantial fraction of the total reasoning budget. Motivated by these findings, we investigate early stopping strategies that halt generation once the answer has stabilized. We show that simple heuristics, including probe-based stopping, can reduce reasoning token usage by 500 tokens per query while incurring only a 2% drop in accuracy. Together, our results indicate that a large portion of chain-of-thought generation is redundant and can be reduced with minimal impact on performance.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment. Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve accuracy and reliability, but its effect on calibration is not fully understood. We show that this picture is incomplete: in some settings, increasing the reasoning budget beyond a task-specific threshold can cause models to become systematically overconfident, assigning high confidence to incorrect answers. We call this phenomenon Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR) and study it both theoretically and empirically. We define reasoning budget B and analyze conditions under which Expected Calibration Error ECE(B) follows a non-monotonic pattern: it first decreases as reasoning corrects errors, then increases as longer reasoning produces internally consistent but incorrect explanations. We propose a Hypothesis Lock-In model based on autoregressive generation to explain this behavior. We evaluate Llama-3.1-8B and Llama-3.3-70B on 47 reasoning-trap questions across four reasoning budgets and three seeds (1,368 API calls; 574 valid responses). The 8B model shows non-monotonic calibration behavior, while results for the 70B model are limited to baseline evaluation and are inconclusive for budget-dependent effects. We introduce CABStop, a calibration-aware stopping rule that halts reasoning when confidence diverges from an auxiliary accuracy estimate. These results suggest that increasing reasoning depth does not always improve reliability and should be monitored carefully.

There are 7,407 languages in the world. But, what about the languages that are not there in the world? Are humans so narrow minded that we don't care about the languages aliens communicate in? Aliens are humans too! In the 2016 movie Arrival, Amy Adams plays a linguist, Dr. Louise Banks who, by learning to think in an alien language (Heptapod) formed of non-sequential sentences, gains the ability to transcend time and look into the future. In this work, I aim to explore the representation and reasoning of vision-language concepts in a neuro-symbolic language, and study improvement in analytical reasoning abilities and efficiency of "thinking systems". With Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct as base model and 4 $\times$ Nvidia H200 GPU nodes, I achieve an accuracy improvement of 3.33% on a vision-language evaluation dataset consisting of math, science, and general knowledge questions, while reducing the reasoning tokens by 75% over SymPy. I've documented the compute challenges faced, scaling possibilities, and the future work to improve thinking in a neuro-symbolic language in vision-language models. The training and inference setup can be found here: https://github.com/i-like-bfs-and-dfs/wolfram-reasoning.

Reasoning LLMs often spend substantial tokens on long intermediate reasoning traces (e.g., chain-of-thought) when solving new problems. We propose to summarize and store reusable reasoning skills distilled from extensive deliberation and trial-and-error exploration, and to retrieve these skills at inference time to guide future reasoning. Unlike the prevailing \emph{reasoning from scratch} paradigm, our approach first recalls relevant skills for each query, helping the model avoid redundant detours and focus on effective solution paths. We evaluate our method on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks, and find that it significantly reduces reasoning tokens while improving overall performance. The resulting lower per-request cost indicates strong practical and economic potential for real-world deployment.

Inference-time scaling for LLM reasoning has focused on three axes: chain depth, sample breadth, and learned step-scorers (PRMs). We introduce a fourth axis, granularity of external verbal supervision, via Verbal Process Supervision (VPS), a training-free framework that uses structured natural-language critique from a stronger supervisor to guide an iterative generate-critique-refine loop up to a round budget R. Across GPQA Diamond, AIME 2025, and LiveCodeBench V6 (covering both closed and open models), VPS yields three key results. First, on GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.4 (High) | GPT-5.4 (Low) reaches 94.9% at R=4, surpassing the 94.1% state of the art without gradient updates. Second, on AIME 2025, VPS enables strong weak-actor rescue, boosting scores from 11.7-26.7% to 63.3-90.0% (up to +63.3 points). Third, at matched compute, VPS outperforms Reflexion by +8.5 to +12.1 points and Self-Consistency@5 by +5.0 pp (GPQA) and +8.3 pp (LiveCodeBench), isolating critique granularity as the key driver. Performance scales with the supervisor-actor capability gap (Pearson r=0.90) and degrades when errors are not linguistically expressible (e.g., code synthesis), motivating hybrid verbal-executable methods. These results establish critique granularity as a new axis of inference-time scaling.

As LLMs reduce English-centric bias, a surprising trend emerges: non-English responses sometimes outperform English on reasoning tasks. We hypothesize that language functions as a latent variable that structurally modulates the model's internal inference pathways, rather than merely serving as an output medium. To test this, we conducted a Polyglot Thinking Experiment, in which models were prompted to solve identical problems under language-constrained and language-unconstrained conditions. Results show that non-English responses often achieve higher accuracy, and the best performance frequently occur when language is unconstrained, suggesting that multilinguality broadens the model's latent reasoning space. Based on this insight, we propose polyGRPO (Polyglot Group Relative Policy Optimization), an RL framework that treats language variation as an implicit exploration signal. It generates polyglot preference data online under language-constrained and unconstrained conditions, optimizing the policy with respect to both answer accuracy and reasoning structure. Trained on only 18.1K multilingual math problems without chain-of-thought annotations, polyGRPO improves the base model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) by 6.72% absolute accuracy on four English reasoning testset and 6.89% in their multilingual benchmark. Remarkably, it is the only method that surpasses the base LLM on English commonsense reasoning task (4.9%), despite being trained solely on math data-highlighting its strong cross-task generalization. Further analysis reveals that treating language as a latent variable expands the model's latent reasoning space, yielding consistent and generalizable improvements in reasoning performance.

Feature discovery from complex unstructured data is fundamentally a reasoning problem: it requires identifying abstractions that are predictive of a target outcome while avoiding leakage, proxies, and post-outcome signals. With the introduction of ever-improving Large Language Models (LLMs), our method provides a structured method for addressing this challenge. LLMs are well suited for this task by being able to process large amounts of information, but unconstrained feature generation can lead to weak features. In this work, we study reasoning control in LLMs by inducing cognitive behaviors for improving feature discovery. We introduce CoFEE (Cognitive Feature Engineering Engine), a reasoning control framework that enforces cognitive behaviors in how the LLM reasons during feature discovery. From a machine learning perspective, these cognitive behaviors act as structured inductive biases over the space of candidate features generated by the model. These behaviors have been exploited with success in ML models, and include backward chaining from outcomes, subgoal decomposition, verification against observability and leakage criteria, and explicit backtracking of rejected reasoning paths. In a controlled comparison, we show that enforcing cognitive behaviors yields features with higher empirical predictability than those under unconstrained vanilla LLM prompts. CoFEE achieves an average Success Rate Score that is 15.2% higher than the vanilla approach, while generating 29% fewer features and reducing costs by 53.3%. Using held-out feature evaluation, we assess whether cognitively induced features generalize beyond the data used for discovery. Our results indicate that, in our evaluated setting, reasoning control is associated with improvements in quality and efficiency of LLM-based feature discovery.

Reasoning in large language models is often discussed as a single capability, but some of its gains may stem from simpler underlying operations. We examine two such primitives, recall and state-tracking, through five controlled task families centered on state-based recall, and compare matched transformer and hybrid architectures with and without reasoning augmentation. Across the suite, reasoning-augmented variants substantially outperform instruction-only variants, often by large margins. This pattern is consistent with the State over Tokens view: externalized reasoning traces help because they carry the intermediate state forward in token space. By contrast, hybrid inductive bias does not yield a uniform advantage in accuracy once reasoning tokens are available. When architectural differences do appear, they follow task structure: the hybrid Think model is more robust on strictly sequential chained updates, whereas the transformer Think model is more robust on flat multi-hop retrieval. We therefore cast the main contribution of this study as a descriptive account of what drives performance on state-based recall tasks: reasoning-token augmentation appears to be the dominant factor, while hybrid advantages are narrower, task-dependent, and potentially more about inference efficiency than overall capability. We also release the codebase and data required to reproduce these results.

While LLMs demonstrate remarkable fluency in narrative generation, existing methods struggle to maintain global narrative coherence, contextual logical consistency, and smooth character development, often producing monotonous scripts with structural fractures. To this end, we introduce PLOTTER, a framework that performs narrative planning on structural graph representations instead of the direct sequential text representations used in existing work. Specifically, PLOTTER executes the Evaluate-Plan-Revise cycle on the event graph and character graph. By diagnosing and repairing issues of the graph topology under rigorous logical constraints, the model optimizes the causality and narrative skeleton before complete context generation. Experiments demonstrate that PLOTTER significantly outperforms representative baselines across diverse narrative scenarios. These findings verify that planning narratives on structural graph representations-rather than directly on text-is crucial to enhance the long context reasoning of LLMs in complex narrative generation.

In this work, we develop a novel reasoning approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) in future occupation prediction. In this approach, a reason generator first derives a ``reason'' for a user using his/her past education and career history. The reason summarizes the user's preference and is used as the input of an occupation predictor to recommend the user's next occupation. This two-step occupation prediction approach is, however, non-trivial as LLMs are not aligned with career paths or the unobserved reasons behind each occupation decision. We therefore propose to fine-tune LLMs improving their reasoning and occupation prediction performance. We first derive high-quality oracle reasons, as measured by factuality, coherence and utility criteria, using a LLM-as-a-Judge. These oracle reasons are then used to fine-tune small LLMs to perform reason generation and next occupation prediction. Our extensive experiments show that: (a) our approach effectively enhances LLM's accuracy in next occupation prediction making them comparable to fully supervised methods and outperforming unsupervised methods; (b) a single LLM fine-tuned to perform reason generation and occupation prediction outperforms two LLMs fine-tuned to perform the tasks separately; and (c) the next occupation prediction accuracy depends on the quality of generated reasons. Our code is available at https://github.com/Sarasarahhhhh/job_prediction.

While LLMs demonstrate impressive reasoning capabilities, they remain fragile in multi-step logical deduction, where a single transition error can propagate through the entire reasoning chain, leading to unstable performance. In this work, we identify logical connectives as primary points of this structural fragility. Through empirical analysis, we show that connective tokens function as high entropy forking points, at which models frequently struggle to determine the correct logical direction. Motivated by this observation, we hypothesize that intervening in logical connective selection can guide LLMs toward more correct logical direction, thereby improving the overall reasoning chain. To validate this hypothesis, we propose a multi-layered framework that intervenes specifically at these logic-critical junctions in the reasoning process. Our framework includes (1) Gradient-based Logical Steering to guide LLMs internal representations towards valid reasoning subspaces, (2) Localized Branching to resolve ambiguity via targeted look-ahead search, and (3) Targeted Transition Preference Optimization, a surgical reinforcement learning objective that selectively optimizes single-token preferences at logical pivots. Crucially, by concentrating intervention solely on logic-critical transitions, our framework achieves a favorable accuracy--efficiency trade-off compared to global inference time scaling methods like beam search and self-consistency.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is an effective framework for aligning large language models with human preferences, but it struggles with complex reasoning tasks. DPO optimizes for the likelihood of generating preferred over dispreferred responses in their entirety and lacks the granularity to provide feedback on subsections of many-step solutions typical of reasoning tasks. Existing methods excel at either stable preference learning (e.g., DPO variants like KTO and RSO) or structured reasoning (e.g., ReMA's multi-agent RL framework, Tree of Thoughts), but fail to merge these complementary strengths. We propose HiPO (Hierarchical Preference Optimization), an extension of DPO that separates responses into reasoning segments (query clarification and context, reasoning steps, and answer) and computes loss as a weighted sum of the DPO loss for each segment. Our approach enables segment-specific training while maintaining DPO's computational efficiency and training stability. We demonstrate that for multiple 7B LLMs fine-tuned using HiPO and DPO on the Math Stack Exchange preference dataset, the models trained with HiPO outperform the others on a variety of common math benchmarks and achieve greater organization, logical flow, and consistency as measured by GPT-4.1.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their reliability in critical applications. Conformal Prediction (CP) addresses this by calibrating error rates on held-out data to provide statistically valid confidence guarantees. Recent work extends CP to LLM factuality to filter out risky claims, ensuring that hallucination rates remain below a user-specified level (e.g., 10%). While prior methods treat claims independently, Coherent Factuality extends to multi-step reasoning by representing outputs as dependency graphs and jointly validating claims with their logical ancestors. A key limitation is that Coherent Factuality is not differentiable, requiring hand-crafted scorers that at high reliability levels remove nearly 60% of true claims. We introduce Differentiable Coherent Factuality (DCF), a fully differentiable relaxation that enables learning improved scorers while provably recovering the original algorithm's guarantees. Experiments on two benchmark reasoning datasets demonstrate DCF achieves up to 141% improvement in claim retention while maintaining reliability guarantees, representing a significant step towards reliable conformal LLM systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with multi-step logical reasoning. Existing approaches either purely refine the reasoning chain in natural language form or attach a symbolic solver as an external module. In this work, we instead ask whether LLMs contain a shared internal logical subspace that simultaneously aligns natural-language and symbolic-language views of the reasoning process. Our hypothesis is that this logical subspace captures logical reasoning capabilities in LLMs that are shared across views while remaining independent of surface forms. To verify this, we employ Canonical Correlation Analysis on the paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic-language reasoning chains, learning a low-dimensional subspace with maximum cross-view correlation. Furthermore, we design a training-free approach that steers LLMs reasoning chain along this logical subspace, thereby leveraging the complementary reasoning signals from both views. Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, improving accuracy by up to 11 percentage points and generalizing well on out-of-domain problems.

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress on complex reasoning tasks. However, they often implicitly fabricate information when inputs are incomplete, producing confident but unreliable conclusions -- a failure mode we term ungrounded reasoning. We argue that this issue arises not from insufficient reasoning capability, but from the lack of inferential boundary awareness -- the ability to recognize when the necessary premises for valid inference are missing. To address this issue, we propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL), a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework for grounded reasoning under incomplete information. GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established. We design stage-specific rewards to penalize hallucinations, enabling models to detect gaps, stop proactively, and resume reasoning after clarification. Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%. Additional analyses confirm robustness to noisy user responses and generalization to out-of-distribution tasks.

Formal verification guarantees proof validity but not formalization faithfulness. For natural-language logical reasoning, where models construct axiom systems from scratch without library constraints, this gap between valid proofs and faithful translations is especially acute. We investigate whether frontier models exploit this gap when generating Lean 4 proofs, a behavior we term formalization gaming. We evaluate GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 on 303 first-order logic problems (203 from FOLIO, 100 from Multi-LogiEval), comparing unified generation against a two-stage pipeline that separates formalization from proving. Despite compilation rates of 87-99%, we find no evidence of systematic gaming in unified generation: models prefer reporting failure over forcing proofs, even under prompting designed to encourage it. However, unfaithfulness that evades our detection signals may still occur. The two-stage pipeline reveals two distinct modes of unfaithfulness: GPT-5 fabricates axioms during proof generation, a reactive fallback detectable via cross-stage comparison, while DeepSeek-R1 mistranslates premises during formalization, producing internally consistent outputs that evade detection entirely. These findings show that high compilation rates or accuracies should not be equated with faithful reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/koreankiwi99/formalization-gaming.

Reasoning language models can solve increasingly complex tasks, but struggle to produce the calibrated confidence estimates necessary for reliable deployment. Existing calibration methods usually depend on labels or repeated sampling at inference time, making them impractical in many settings. We introduce a method for unsupervised confidence calibration of reasoning LLMs when only a single generation is available at inference time. Our approach uses offline sampling on unlabeled data to derive a self-consistency-based proxy target, then distills this signal into a lightweight deployment-time confidence predictor. In a broad evaluation across 5 math and question-answering tasks using 9 reasoning models, our method substantially outperforms baselines, including under distribution shift, and improves downstream performance in selective prediction and simulated downstream decision-making.

Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought, paying heavily in latency, GPU time, and energy. Casual inspection of their traces reveals extensive reformulation, verification, and circular self-reflection, yet how much of this deliberation is actually necessary has never been measured at scale or explained from first principles. This paper closes both gaps. We formalise reasoning redundancy directly in terms of the reasoning model itself: the redundancy of a correct trace is the largest fraction of its trailing segmented steps that can be truncated while $π$, forced to terminate thinking and emit a final answer, still produces the correct answer. A large-scale quantification across four frontier reasoning models and two mathematical benchmarks shows that step-level redundancy is consistently high -- between 61% and 93% across the 8 (model, benchmark) conditions we study, with the median critical prefix equal to a single segmented step in six of the eight conditions -- that the finding is robust to the choice of judge family, and that although $ρ$ decreases with problem difficulty on MATH-500, all four models remain substantially redundant ($ρ\in [46\%, 85\%]$) even on the hardest Level-5 problems. We then prove that this redundancy is a structural consequence of length-agnostic outcome rewards, not a model-specific artefact: under any such reward, no finite expected stopping time is optimal. The result holds regardless of RL algorithm, base model, data distribution, or whether the policy is obtained via RL or distillation; over-thinking is therefore not a bug to be patched in individual models but a structural property of how current reasoning models are trained. Code: https://github.com/zhiyuanZhai20/how-much-thinking-is-enough

We introduce Options LLM (OLLM), a simple, general method that replaces the single next-token prediction of standard LLMs with a \textit{set of learned options} for the next token, indexed by a discrete latent variable. Instead of relying on temperature or sampling heuristics to induce diversity, OLLM models variation explicitly: a small latent space parametrizes multiple plausible next-token options which can be selected or searched by a downstream policy. Architecturally, OLLM is a lightweight "plug-in" that inserts two layers: an encoder and a decoder, before the output head, allowing almost any pretrained LLM to be converted with minimal additional parameters. We apply OLLM to a 1.7B-parameter backbone (only $1.56\%$ of parameters trainable) trained on OpenMathReasoning and evaluated on OmniMath. The SOTA LoRA-adapted baselines peak at $51\%$ final answer correctness, while OLLM's option set allows up to $\sim 70\%$ under optimal latent selection. We then train a compact policy in the latent space that emits latents to control generation. Operating in a low-dimensional option space makes reward optimization far more sample-efficient and substantially reduces common misalignments (e.g., language switching or degenerate reasoning), as the policy is constrained to options learned during SFT. Crucially, this alignment arises from model structure rather than additional KL or handcrafted alignment losses. Our results demonstrate that optionized next-token modeling enhances controllability, robustness, and efficiency in math reasoning, and highlight latent-space policy learning as a promising direction for reinforcement learning in LLMs.

Accurate disease classification from radiology reports is essential for many applications. While supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of lightweight LLMs improves accuracy, it can degrade reasoning. We propose a two-stage approach: SFT on disease labels followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to refine predictions by optimizing accuracy and format without reasoning supervision. Across three radiologist-annotated datasets, SFT outperformed baselines and GRPO further improved classification and enhanced reasoning recall and comprehensiveness.

Statement autoformalization acts as a critical bridge between human mathematics and formal mathematics by translating natural language problems into formal language. While prior works have focused on data synthesis and diverse training paradigms to optimize end-to-end Large Language Models (LLMs), they typically treat formal code as flat sequences, neglecting the hierarchical logic inherent in mathematical statements. In this work, we introduce Decompose, Structure, and Repair (DSR), a neuro-symbolic framework that restructures autoformalization into a modular pipeline. DSR decomposes statements into logical components and maps them to structured operator trees, leveraging this topological blueprint to precisely localize and repair errors via sub-tree refinement. Furthermore, we introduce PRIME, a benchmark of 156 undergraduate and graduate-level theorems selected from canonical textbooks and expertly annotated in Lean 4. Experimental results demonstrate that DSR establishes a new state-of-the-art, consistently outperforming baselines under equivalent computational budgets. The datasets, model, and code are available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/DSR.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are increasingly integrated with large language models (LLMs) to provide structured, verifiable reasoning. A core operation in this integration is multi-hop retrieval, yet existing systems struggle to balance efficiency, scalability, and interpretability. We introduce LogosKG, a novel, hardware-aligned framework that enables scalable and interpretable k-hop retrieval on large KGs by building on symbolic KG formulations and executing traversal as hardware-efficient operations over decomposed subject, object, and relation representations. To scale to billion-edge graphs, LogosKG integrates degree-aware partitioning, cross-graph routing, and on-demand caching. Experiments show substantial efficiency gains over CPU and GPU baselines without loss of retrieval fidelity. With proven performance in KG retrieval, a downstream two-round KG-LLM interaction demonstrates how LogosKG enables large-scale, evidence-grounded analysis of how KG topology, such as hop distribution and connectivity, shapes the alignment between structured biomedical knowledge and LLM diagnostic reasoning, thereby opening the door for next-generation KG-LLM integration. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/LARK-NLP-Lab/LogosKG, and an online demo is available at https://lark-nlp-lab-logoskg.hf.space/.

We present a systematic empirical study of prompt engineering for formal mathematical reasoning in the context of the SAIR Equational Theories Stage 1 competition. The task requires deciding whether one equational law implies another over all magmas -- a problem that is undecidable in general but decidable for FALSE via finite model search. Over five weeks, we designed, tested, and analyzed more than 40 prompt variants, ranging from 0 to 4,878 bytes, across four evaluation splits and three language models (gpt-oss-120b, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 4 31B). Our central finding is a single-prompt ceiling: despite substantial engineering effort, balanced hard accuracy plateaus in an empirical saturation region of approximately 60--79% for gpt-oss-120b, compared to a 59.75% no-cheatsheet baseline. We identify three mechanisms underlying this ceiling: (1) the mathematical undecidability of the TRUE case limits what any finite prompt can encode; (2) complex rule systems decrease performance on weaker models (Llama 3.3 70B collapses to 0% TRUE recall with prompts exceeding 2KB); and (3) prompt ordering effects interact with model attention in fragile, non-monotonic ways. Our best submission (AN45c, 2,252 bytes) achieves 79.25% accuracy on hard3 (n=400; 95% CI: [75.0%, 82.9%]), with TRUE recall of 95.9% and FALSE recall of 63.4%, representing a +19.5 percentage-point improvement over the no-cheatsheet baseline (59.75%). We release all prompt variants, evaluation scripts, and results at https://github.com/israelcazares/sair-prompt-engineering

Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable at language generation, but they remain unreliable when reasoning requires explicit symbolic structure, multi-step inference, and interpretable uncertainty. This paper presents a neuro-symbolic framework for translating natural-language reasoning problems into executable formal representations using first-order logic (FOL) and Narsese, the language of the Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS). To support this direction, we introduce NARS-Reasoning-v0.1, a benchmark of natural-language reasoning problems paired with FOL forms, executable Narsese programs, and three gold labels: True, False, and Uncertain. We develop a deterministic compilation pipeline from FOL to executable Narsese and validate retained examples through runtime execution in OpenNARS for Applications (ONA), ensuring that the symbolic targets are not only syntactically well formed but also behaviorally aligned with the intended answer. We further present Language-Structured Perception (LSP), a formulation in which an LLM is trained to produce reasoning-relevant symbolic structure rather than only a final verbal response. As an initial proof of concept, we also train and release a Phi-2 LoRA adapter on NARS-Reasoning-v0.1 for three-label reasoning classification, showing that the benchmark can support supervised adaptation in addition to executable evaluation. Overall, the paper positions executable symbolic generation and execution-based validation as a practical path toward more reliable neuro-symbolic reasoning systems.

Large language models have achieved significant reasoning improvements through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Yet as model capabilities grow, constructing high-quality reward signals becomes increasingly difficult, making it essential to understand when RLVR can succeed under weaker forms of supervision. We conduct a systematic empirical study across diverse model families and reasoning domains under three weak supervision settings: scarce data, noisy rewards, and self-supervised proxy rewards. We find that generalization is governed by training reward saturation dynamics: models that generalize exhibit a prolonged pre-saturation phase during which training reward and downstream performance climb together, while models that saturate rapidly memorize rather than learn. We identify reasoning faithfulness, defined as the extent to which intermediate steps logically support the final answer, as the pre-RL property that predicts which regime a model falls into, while output diversity alone is uninformative. Motivated by these findings, we disentangle the contributions of continual pre-training and supervised fine-tuning, finding that SFT on explicit reasoning traces is necessary for generalization under weak supervision, while continual pre-training on domain data amplifies the effect. Applied together to Llama3.2-3B-Base, these interventions enable generalization across all three settings where the base model previously failed.

Semantic Tube Prediction (STP) leverages representation geometric to regularize LLM hidden-state trajectories toward locally linear geodesics during fine-tuning, thereby greatly improving data efficiency. The original STP recipe samples random token sub-spans, which is compatible with the base large language model (LLM) training architecture. Inspired by STP, we are interested to investigate whether the sampling position can further enhance the semantic structure of multi-step reasoning, and hence affect its geometric impact. We applied STP at consecutive semantic reasoning step boundaries and achieved 168x more accurate multi-step latent prediction than frozen baselines on ProcessBench (3,400 samples), compared to only 4x for the random-token STP. Probing the latent manifold with a learned non-linear predictor reveals that STP-shaped trajectories are smooth curves, not straight lines: a 3-layer MLP reduces prediction error by a further 3-12x over linear extrapolation on step-boundary models. Removing the language modeling loss yields trajectories that are 2x more MLP-predictable than the combined loss, revealing a tradeoff between generation quality and geometric purity. Our results identify sampling position as the critical variable in geometric regularization and establish multi-step latent prediction MSE as a new evaluation metric for this class of methods.

LLMs utilizing chain-of-thought reasoning often waste substantial compute by producing long, incorrect responses. Abstention can mitigate this by withholding outputs unlikely to be correct. While most abstention methods decide to withhold outputs before or after generation, dynamic mid-generation abstention considers early termination of unpromising reasoning traces at each token position. Prior work has explored empirical variants of this idea, but principled guidance for the abstention rule remains lacking. We present a formal analysis of dynamic abstention for LLMs, modeling abstention as an explicit action within a regularized reinforcement learning framework. An abstention reward parameter controls the trade-off between compute and information. We show that abstaining when the value function falls below this reward strictly outperforms natural baselines under general conditions. We further derive a principled and efficient method to approximate the value function. Empirical results on mathematical reasoning and toxicity avoidance tasks support our theory and demonstrate improved selective accuracy over existing methods.

Large language models (LLMs) show strong capabilities in general reasoning but typically lack reliability in scientific domains like quantum mechanics, which demand strict adherence to physical constraints. This limitation arises from the scarcity of verifiable training resources and the inadequacy of coarse feedback signals in standard alignment paradigms. To address the data challenge, we introduce QuantumQA, a large-scale dataset constructed via a task-adaptive strategy and a hybrid verification protocol that combines deterministic solvers with semantic auditing to guarantee scientific rigor. Building on this foundation, we propose the verification-aware reward model (VRM) tailored for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which employs an adaptive reward fusion (ARF) mechanism to dynamically integrate deterministic signals from a scientific execution suite (SES) with multidimensional semantic evaluations for precise supervision. Experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms baselines and general-purpose preference models. Notably, our optimized 8B model achieves performance competitive with proprietary models, validating that incorporating verifiable, rule-based feedback into the reinforcement learning loop offers a parameter-efficient alternative to pure scaling.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to logical hallucinations and stochastic drifts during long-chain reasoning. While Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG) can improve instruction adherence, standard static implementations often cause semantic dilution and linguistic degradation. We propose SPREG (Structured Plan-guided Real-time Entropy Gating), a lightweight inference-time framework for surgical error rectification. SPREG employs an adaptive dual-threshold mechanism to monitor real-time entropy, identifying sudden ``entropy spikes'' as reliable indicators of logical failure. Upon detection, it triggers a dynamic repair by replacing uninformative null-priors with reference distributions synthesized from historical high-confidence states. By modulating guidance intensity according to structured reasoning stages (e.g., Action, Observation), SPREG steers the model back to a stable manifold without compromising fluency. Our experiments demonstrate significant gains, notably a 20.0% absolute accuracy improvement on AIME25, while effectively suppressing uncontrolled entropy drift in complex tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) perform substantially below human level on existing theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks, even when augmented with chain-of-thought prompting or probabilistic belief updates. We argue that these failures primarily arise from unreliable implicit state tracking rather than limitations in high-level reasoning. We introduce PDDL-Mind, a neuro-symbolic framework that decouples environment state evolution from belief inference. By translating narrative descriptions into explicit states and actions expressed in Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), and by verifying action-induced state transitions against a predefined domain, PDDL-Mind provides LLMs with a logically consistent and explicit representation of world states for ToM tasks. Experiments on MMToM-QA, MuMA and FanToM show that PDDL-Mind achieves over 5% absolute accuracy gain over the best existing state-of-the-art method on ToM benchmark questions.

Text-to-motion (T2M) generation aims to control the behavior of a target character via textual descriptions. Leveraging text-motion paired datasets, existing T2M models have achieved impressive performance in generating high-quality motions within the distribution of their training data. However, their performance deteriorates notably when the motion descriptions differ significantly from the training texts. To address this issue, we propose Re$^2$MoGen, a Reasoning and Refinement open-vocabulary Motion Generation framework that leverages enhanced Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning to generate an initial motion planning and then refine its physical plausibility via reinforcement learning (RL) post-training. Specifically, Re$^2$MoGen consists of three stages: We first employ Monte Carlo tree search to enhance the LLM's reasoning ability in generating reasonable keyframes of the motion based on text prompts, specifying only the root and several key joints' positions to ease the reasoning process. Then, we apply a human pose model as a prior to optimize the full-body poses based on the planned keyframes and use the resulting incomplete motion to supervise fine-tuning a pre-trained motion generator via a dynamic temporal matching objective, enabling spatiotemporal completion. Finally, we use post-training with physics-aware reward to refine motion quality to eliminate physical implausibility in LLM-planned motions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework can generate semantically consistent and physically plausible motions and achieve state-of-the-art performance in open-vocabulary motion generation.

The democratization of ubiquitous AI hinges on deploying sophisticated reasoning capabilities on resource-constrained devices. However, Small Language Models (SLMs) often face a "reasoning gap", particularly in non-English languages like Vietnamese, where they struggle to maintain coherent chains of thought. This paper investigates Test-Time Scaling strategies for the Qwen3-1.7B architecture within the context of Vietnamese Elementary Mathematics. We introduce Vi-S1K, a high-fidelity reasoning dataset localized via a Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite powered pipeline, and Vi-Elementary-Bench, a dual-resource benchmark for rigorous evaluation. Using an LLM-as-a-Judge protocol, we reveal that the base model possesses robust latent knowledge (Accuracy: 4.05/5.00) but suffers from a severe "formatting gap" in communication. Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) acts as a critical "reasoning unlocker", yielding a 77% improvement in Explanation Quality and bridging the gap between raw calculation and pedagogical coherence. Furthermore, our analysis of prompting strategies uncovers a significant trade-off: structured frameworks like ReAct impose a "cognitive tax" on the 1.7B parameter capacity, degrading performance relative to pure Chain-of-Thought (CoT) combined with Self-Consistency. These findings establish a deployment hierarchy for SLMs, demonstrating that SFT combined with simplified test-time scaling is superior to complex agentic workflows for edge-based reasoning.

Distractor generation (DG) remains a labor-intensive task that still significantly depends on domain experts. The task focuses on generating plausible yet incorrect options, known as distractors, for multiple-choice questions. A reliable distractor must be contextually relevant to the question and able to mislead examinees through implicit reasoning when identifying the correct answer. While a recent method integrates fine-tuning pre-trained encoder-decoder models with contrastive learning to generate semantically relevant distractors for a given question-answer, it often fails to capture the underlying reasoning process that experts utilize when selecting distractors in benchmarks. In this paper, we explore large language models (LLMs) reasoning for DG through in-context learning with unsupervised semantic retrieval for selecting few-shot examples. We design a rationale-augmented DG framework that jointly generates distractors and their rationales for a given question-answer. Extensive experiments on six benchmarks, with varying average distractor lengths and domains, demonstrate that prompting LLMs with few-shot examples substantially improves the performance compared to recent DG models. It outperforms recent approaches and achieves state-of-the-art results in generating reasoned distractors that align with human-labeled benchmarks.

Self-consistency (SC) is a popular technique for improving the reasoning accuracy of large language models by aggregating multiple sampled outputs, but it comes at a high computational cost due to extensive sampling. We introduce a hybrid ensembling approach that leverages the complementary strengths of two distinct modes of reasoning: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT). We describe a general framework for combining these two forms of reasoning in self-consistency, as well as particular strategies for both full sampling and early-stopping. We show that CoT-PoT ensembling not only improves overall accuracy, but also drastically reduces the number of samples required for SC by a factor of 9.3x. In particular, the majority of tasks (78.6%) can be addressed with only two samples, which has not been possible with any prior SC methods.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities, and as existing approaches for enhancing LLM reasoning continue to mature, increasing attention has shifted toward meta-reasoning as a promising direction for further improvement. However, most existing meta-reasoning methods remain episodic: they focus on executing complex meta-reasoning routines within individual instances, but ignore the accumulation of reusable meta-reasoning skills across instances, leading to recurring failure modes and repeatedly high metacognitive effort. In this paper, we introduce Metacognitive Consolidation, a novel framework in which a model consolidates metacognitive experience from past reasoning episodes into reusable knowledge that improves future meta-reasoning. We instantiate this framework by structuring instance-level problem solving into distinct roles for reasoning, monitoring, and control to generate rich, attributable meta-level traces. These traces are then consolidated through a hierarchical, multi-timescale update mechanism that gradually forms evolving meta-knowledge. Experimental results demonstrate consistent performance gains across benchmarks and backbone models, and show that performance improves as metacognitive experience accumulates over time.

LLMs are widely used for code generation and mathematical reasoning tasks where they are required to generate structured output. They either need to reason about code, generate code for a given specification, or reason using programs of thought. The typical approach to code generation is to prompt the model and generate samples until an appropriate program is obtained. Within this process, sampling $n$ programs from the language model requires $n$ GPU compute-intensive generations which becomes prohibitively expensive for larger values of $n$. In this work, we address this limitation by exposing the LLM's distribution within the generated programs themselves. We propose a novel test-time framework we dub probabilistic programs of thought to obtain more samples from the model with fewer LLM generations. Given a program generated by a model and the associated next-token probabilities, we build a probabilistic program that compactly represents exponentially many deterministic programs. Since performing probabilistic reasoning in this probabilistic program is much cheaper, our approach allows sampling new programs without any additional GPU compute and little CPU overhead. We instantiate our approach on benchmarks for code generation, code understanding and mathematical reasoning and report improvements in performance with fewer generations from the LLM.

Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.

Languages encode distinct abstractions and inductive priors, yet most large language models (LLMs) overlook this diversity by reasoning in a single dominant language. In this work, we introduce x1, a family of reasoning models that can adaptively reason in an advantageous language on a per-instance basis. To isolate the effect of reasoning-language choice, x1 is constructed without expanding the model's knowledge boundaries and is trained by contrasting linguistically distinct reasoning trajectories for the same input. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the benefits of adaptive multilingual reasoning across multilingual mathematical reasoning and culturally grounded tasks. Moreover, our results challenge a simplistic view of scaling laws: while scaling reduces cross-lingual disparities in procedural domains such as math reasoning, it does not eliminate the advantages of culture-associated languages in culturally grounded tasks, as we empirically show that such reasoning enables more efficient and accurate cultural knowledge recall. Overall, our findings establish language choice as a functional component of reasoning, with implications for building more generalist and globally competent reasoning models.

Although most of the automated theorem-proving approaches depend on formal proof systems, informal theorem proving can align better with large language models' (LLMs) strength in natural language processing. In this work, we identify a primary bottleneck in informal theorem proving as a lack of insight, namely the difficulty of recognizing the core techniques required to solve complex problems. To address this, we propose $\texttt{DeepInsight}$, a unified training framework designed to cultivate this essential reasoning skill and enable LLMs to perform insightful reasoning. Our framework consists of three components: (1) $\texttt{DeepInsightTheorem}$, a hierarchical dataset that structures informal proofs by explicitly extracting core techniques and proof sketches alongside the final proof; (2) a Progressive Multi-Stage SFT strategy that mimics the human learning process, teaching the model proof writing, planning, and insight identification; and (3) $\texttt{InsightPO}$, a policy optimization method that assigns structured rewards over this insight hierarchy. Our experiments on challenging mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that this insight-aware generation strategy significantly outperforms baselines. These results demonstrate that teaching models to identify and apply core techniques can substantially improve their mathematical reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to solve complex tasks. Yet ensuring that the reasoning trace both contributes to and faithfully reflects the processes underlying the model's final answer, rather than merely accompanying it, remains challenging. We introduce AtManRL, a method that leverages differentiable attention manipulation to learn more faithful reasoning through reinforcement learning. By training an additive attention mask that identifies tokens in the CoT crucial for producing correct answers, we derive a saliency reward signal that encourages the model to generate reasoning traces that genuinely influence its final predictions. We integrate this saliency reward with outcome-based rewards within the GRPO framework to jointly optimize for correctness and interpretability. Experiments on GSM8K and MMLU with Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct demonstrate that our approach can identify influential reasoning tokens and enable training more transparent reasoning models.

Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS). Yet, they face significant challenges in complex domains. Error propagation from incorrect intermediate reasoning can lead to false positives for seemingly plausible solutions, while lacking external grounding makes verifiers unreliable on computation or knowledge-intensive tasks. To address these challenges, we propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process. We introduce complementary forward and backward agents: one traces solutions from premises to conclusions, while the other re-checks conclusions against their underlying premises. This bidirectional process enables a comprehensive, reliable, and interpretable assessment of solutions. To facilitate practical deployment, we propose AgentV-RL. Through proactive exploration and reinforcement learning, the verifier autonomously interleaves tool-use with internal reasoning. Extensive experiments show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS. Notably, our 4B variant surpasses state-of-the-art ORMs by 25.2%, positioning it as a promising paradigm for agentic reward modeling.

While Diffusion Large Language Models (dLLMs) offer structural advantages for global planning, efficiently verifying that they arrive at correct answers via valid reasoning traces remains a critical challenge. In this work, we propose a geometric perspective: Reasoning on the Manifold. We hypothesize that valid generation trajectories reside as stable attractors on the high-density manifold of the learned distribution, whereas invalid paths exhibit off-manifold drift. To operationalize this, we introduce Bidirectional Manifold Consistency (BMC), a training-free, unsupervised metric that quantifies the stability of the generated sequence through a forward-masking and backward-reconstruction cycle. Empirically, we demonstrate BMC's versatility across the full reasoning lifecycle: (1) in Diagnosis, it serves as a robust discriminator of solution validity without ground truth answer; (2) in Inference, it enables rejection resampling to effectively concentrate computational resources on complex reasoning tasks; and (3) in Alignment, it functions as a dense geometric reward that transforms sparse outcome supervision into fine-grained guidance, empowering models to self-evolve beyond standard baselines. Our results establish intrinsic geometric stability as a robust indicator of correctness for dLLMs.