Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can exhibit step-by-step reasoning, reflection, and backtracking, but these behaviors are often unregulated, leading to overthinking. As a result, LRMs continue generating redundant reasoning even after reaching high-confidence conclusions. This increases inference cost and latency, limiting practical deployment. The root cause is the absence of an intrinsic mechanism to monitor the reasoning state and decide when to continue, backtrack, or stop. We propose MERA, a meta-cognitive reasoning framework that decouples reasoning from control to enable independent optimization of control strategies. MERA constructs high-quality reasoning-control supervision data via a takeover-based pipeline, and transforms long-horizon traces into structured reasoning-control alternating sequences for training. The model is trained with supervised fine-tuning to internalize the structured separation, and further optimized with Control-Segment Policy Optimization (CSPO), which combines segment-wise GRPO with control masking to focus learning on control segments. Experiments across reasoning benchmarks show that MERA improves both efficiency and accuracy.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often exhibit overthinking, producing verbose Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces that increase inference cost and obscure the underlying reasoning process. Existing CoT compression methods mainly rely on global length rewards, which conflate necessary intermediate reasoning with redundant text and may therefore compromise reasoning fidelity. This paper revisits overthinking from a semantic-efficiency perspective and decomposes CoT redundancy into two distinct forms: internal redundancy, defined as informational stagnation before the first correct answer, and external redundancy, defined as superfluous continuation after the first correct answer. Based on this decomposition, we propose a dual-penalty reinforcement learning framework that separately optimizes reasoning progress and termination behavior. Specifically, a sliding-window semantic similarity metric penalizes low-progress reasoning segments, while a normalized external-redundancy metric discourages post-answer continuation. Experiments on GSM8K, MATH500, and AIME24 across different model scales show that our method reduces average reasoning length by 41.3% on the 1.5B model and 40.1% on the 7B model, while preserving competitive accuracy and achieving the best overall accuracy-efficiency score among evaluated baselines. The learned compression behavior further transfers to out-of-domain reasoning tasks, including GPQA and LiveCodeBench. More importantly, our analysis reveals a clear asymmetry between the two redundancy types: external redundancy can be largely removed with little performance loss, whereas internal redundancy compression follows a sensitive accuracy-efficiency trade-off. These results suggest that effective CoT compression should optimize semantic efficiency rather than sequence length alone, offering a principled route toward more concise, efficient, and interpretable LRMs.

Emerging Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) consistently excel in mathematical and reasoning tasks, showcasing remarkable capabilities. However, the enhancement of reasoning abilities and the exposure of internal reasoning processes introduce new safety vulnerabilities. A critical question arises: when reasoning becomes intertwined with harmfulness, will LRMs become more vulnerable to jailbreaks in reasoning mode? To investigate this, we introduce HauntAttack, a novel and general-purpose black-box adversarial attack framework that systematically embeds harmful instructions into reasoning questions. Specifically, we modify key reasoning conditions in existing questions with harmful instructions, thereby constructing a reasoning pathway that guides the model step by step toward unsafe outputs. We evaluate HauntAttack on 11 LRMs and observe an average attack success rate of over 70%, achieving up to 13 percentage points of absolute improvement over the strongest prior baseline. Our further analysis reveals that even advanced safety-aligned models remain highly susceptible to reasoning-based attacks, offering insights into the urgent challenge of balancing reasoning capability and safety in future model development.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have made significant progress in mathematical capabilities in recent times. However, these successes have been primarily confined to competition-level problems. In this work, we propose AI Mathematician (AIM) framework, which harnesses the reasoning strength of LRMs to support frontier mathematical research. We have identified two critical challenges of mathematical research compared to competition, the intrinsic complexity of research problems and the requirement of procedural rigor. To address these challenges, AIM incorporates two core strategies: an exploration mechanism to foster longer solution paths, and the pessimistic reasonable verification method to ensure reliability. This early version of AIM already exhibits strong capability in tackling research-level tasks. We conducted extensive experiments across several real-world mathematical topics and obtained promising results. AIM is able to autonomously construct substantial portions of proofs and uncover non-trivial insights within each research area. These findings highlight the potential of LRMs in mathematical discovery and suggest that LRM-based agent systems could significantly accelerate mathematical research in the future.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) leverage explicit reasoning traces, known as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, to decompose complex problems into intermediate steps before deriving final answers. However, these reasoning traces introduce unique safety challenges: harmful content can be embedded in intermediate steps even when final answers appear benign. Our study reveals that existing state-of-the-art moderation tools experience significant performance degradation on CoT moderation, with F1 scores dropping by up to 35.2% compared to traditional answer moderation. To address these challenges, we present ReasoningShield, a comprehensive benchmark and a suite of strong lightweight models for CoT safety moderation. Our benchmark includes 9.2K annotated (Query, CoT) pairs with structured stepwise risk analysis, consisting of a 7K-sample training set and a 2.2K human-annotated test set, spanning 10 risk categories, 3 safety levels, and 8 LRMs with diverse reasoning paradigms. To further demonstrate the utility of the benchmark, we develop lightweight models with 1B/3B parameters using a two-stage training strategy. Our models achieve 91.8% F1 on our benchmark, substantially outperforming leading tools such as LlamaGuard-4 by 35.6% and commercial models such as GPT-4o by 15.8%, while generalizing effectively across diverse reasoning paradigms and unseen scenarios. Resources are publicly available: Project Page: https://cosmosyi.github.io/ReasoningShield/, Code: https://github.com/CosmosYi/ReasoningShield, Models: https://huggingface.co/ReasoningShield/models, and Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ReasoningShield/ReasoningShield-Dataset.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks, yet their tendency to "overthink" leads to inefficiencies. Although "save-thinking" prompts are intended to mitigate this issue, we find that LRMs still frequently enter the "Still-thinking" mode instead of the expected "No-thinking" mode, especially on difficult queries. To analyze this behavioral divergence, we examine LRMs from three perspectives: confidence at the thinking-termination boundary, divergence in internal attention distributions, and attention allocation across prompt segments. We find that high perplexity is associated with later Still-thinking behavior, and that Still-thinking cases allocate more attention to the original question. Based on these observations, we propose an attention intervention method to regulate this behavior. While this intervention suppresses explicit thinking, it also causes a drop in accuracy, suggesting that the suppressed reasoning behavior is often useful for correctness. Our work provides confidence- and attention-level evidence for this behavior, highlighting the trade-off between instruction following, inference efficiency, and reasoning correctness.

As language model (LM) outputs get more and more natural, it is becoming more difficult than ever to evaluate their quality. Simultaneously, increasing LMs' "thinking" time through scaling test-time compute has proven an effective technique to solve challenging problems in domains such as math and code. This raises a natural question: can an LM's evaluation capability also be improved by spending more test-time compute? To answer this, we investigate employing reasoning models-LMs that natively generate long chain-of-thought reasoning-as evaluators. Specifically, we examine methods to leverage more test-time compute by (1) using reasoning models, and (2) prompting these models to evaluate not only the response as a whole (i.e., outcome evaluation) but also assess each step in the response separately (i.e., process evaluation). In experiments, we observe that the evaluator's performance improves monotonically when generating more reasoning tokens, similar to the trends observed in LM-based generation. Furthermore, we use these more accurate evaluators to rerank multiple generations, and demonstrate that spending more compute at evaluation time can be as effective as using more compute at generation time in improving an LM's problem-solving capability.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning, leveraging chain-of-thought and reinforcement learning. However, many open questions remain regarding the interplay between reasoning token usage and accuracy gains. In particular, when comparing models across generations, it is unclear whether improved performance results from longer reasoning chains or more efficient reasoning. We systematically analyze reasoning chain length across o1-mini and o3-mini variants on the Omni-MATH benchmark, finding that o3-mini (m) achieves superior accuracy without requiring longer reasoning chains than o1-mini. Moreover, we show that accuracy generally declines as reasoning chains grow across all models and compute settings, even when controlling for difficulty of the questions. This accuracy drop is significantly smaller in more proficient models, suggesting that new generations of reasoning models use test-time compute more effectively. Finally, we highlight that while o3-mini (h) achieves a marginal accuracy gain over o3-mini (m), it does so by allocating substantially more reasoning tokens across all problems, even the ones that o3-mini (m) can already solve. These findings provide new insights into the relationship between model capability and reasoning length, with implications for efficiency, scaling, and evaluation methodologies.

This comprehensive study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview large language model across a diverse array of complex reasoning tasks, spanning multiple domains, including computer science, mathematics, natural sciences, medicine, linguistics, and social sciences. Through rigorous testing, o1-preview demonstrated remarkable capabilities, often achieving human-level or superior performance in areas ranging from coding challenges to scientific reasoning and from language processing to creative problem-solving. Key findings include: -83.3% success rate in solving complex competitive programming problems, surpassing many human experts. -Superior ability in generating coherent and accurate radiology reports, outperforming other evaluated models. -100% accuracy in high school-level mathematical reasoning tasks, providing detailed step-by-step solutions. -Advanced natural language inference capabilities across general and specialized domains like medicine. -Impressive performance in chip design tasks, outperforming specialized models in areas such as EDA script generation and bug analysis. -Remarkable proficiency in anthropology and geology, demonstrating deep understanding and reasoning in these specialized fields. -Strong capabilities in quantitative investing. O1 has comprehensive financial knowledge and statistical modeling skills. -Effective performance in social media analysis, including sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. The model excelled particularly in tasks requiring intricate reasoning and knowledge integration across various fields. While some limitations were observed, including occasional errors on simpler problems and challenges with certain highly specialized concepts, the overall results indicate significant progress towards artificial general intelligence.