Large Reasoning Models

Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the cognitive processes that make items difficult. We argue that difficulty should be viewed not only as a property of item text, but also as an observable consequence of the problem-solving burden an item induces. Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) offer scalable process evidence through reasoning traces, but such evidence must be structured to support interpretable modeling. To this end, we introduce Epi2Diff (Episode to Difficulty), a framework that maps LRM reasoning traces into cognitively grounded episode sequences. These episodes group trace segments into functional problem-solving states, enabling difficulty to be modeled through reasoning scale, effort allocation, and state transitions. Epi2Diff extracts compact episode-dynamic features and combines them with semantic item representations for human difficulty prediction. Experiments on four real-world human difficulty datasets show that Epi2Diff consistently outperforms strong baselines, including fine-tuned small language models, LLM in-context learning, and supervised LLM adaptation. On SAT-derived classification benchmarks, Epi2Diff achieves an 8.1% average relative gain over supervised LLM fine-tuning baselines. Further analyses show that harder items induce more effortful, iterative, and implementation-centered episode dynamics, rather than merely longer responses. These results demonstrate that cognitive episodes in LRM reasoning traces provide a predictive and interpretable process representation for human item difficulty, offering a new lens for educational measurement with reasoning models.

Echocardiography is the most widely used non-invasive cardiac imaging modality, providing essential information for cardiovascular diagnosis. Interpreting an echocardiogram requires synthesizing complementary evidence across multiple heart views to identify abnormalities and produce structured clinical reports. While recent efforts focus on improving classification performance, most models lack explicit diagnostic reasoning and spatially grounded anatomical evidence, limiting clinician trust. We present EchoSonar-R, a multi-view reasoning-enabled vision-language model that jointly performs multi-label disease classification and report generation from echocardiography studies. EchoSonar-R combines a spatiotemporal video encoder with a structure-aware cardiac detector that provides spatially grounded anatomical cues to improve interpretability and clinician trust during cross-view reasoning. EchoSonar-R is trained in two stages: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on reasoning-annotated targets, followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with task-specific rewards that jointly align classification and report generation within a unified reinforcement-learning framework. Across a private multi-view dataset and two public benchmarks, EchoSonar-R improves macro balanced accuracy by 17.1% on the private set and 6.1% on MIMICEchoQA over the strongest baseline, achieves a GREEN clinical faithfulness score of 0.800, and produces interpretable reasoning traces grounded in multi-view visual evidence.

Open Relation Extraction (OpenRE) requires a model to extract unseen relations between head and tail entities from unstructured text for real-world applications. The core challenge of OpenRE lies in achieving reliable generalization to unseen relation types. Current OpenRE approaches either employ clustering techniques, which cannot generate relation labels and suffer from poor generalization, or rely on direct relation label generation via Large Language Models (LLMs), which lack sufficient discriminative capacity to distinguish easily confused relations. To address these limitations, we propose Reasoning-guided progressive OpenRE (ReaORE), a framework for performing relation extraction through coarse-to-fine relation reasoning. Specifically, ReaORE consists of two key stages: (i) relation filtering, which reasons over multiple aspects to understand relations and instances, yielding an initial relation set, and further supplements and filters relations via embedding-based similarity to ensure the target relation is included; (ii) relation prediction, which aims to predict the target relations from the above set via fine-grained comparative reasoning to better distinguish easily confused relations. Extensive experiments on two widely used OpenRE datasets demonstrate that ReaORE outperforms existing baselines.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a small, high-quality set of long reasoning traces is an effective approach for eliciting strong reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing methods for curating high-quality SFT data rely heavily on strong reasoning models to filter examples based on diversity and difficulty, making the curation process costly while often yielding suboptimal data quality. In this work, we show that diverse and challenging reasoning examples can be identified using only the initial reasoning tokens. Specifically, we demonstrate that difficult problems can be reliably detected based on the loss of the first 100 reasoning tokens evaluated at a randomly perturbed checkpoint of the pretrained model. We further show that examples exhibiting similar loss patterns over their first 1k reasoning tokens across a small number of perturbed checkpoints extrapolating along the fine-tuning trajectory provably induce similar gradients. We validate our approach through extensive experiments on fine-tuning Qwen2.5-7B and Llama3.1-8B models on the M23K medical reasoning and OpenThoughts-Math datasets. Our method outperforms existing baselines by up to 1.7% while being 91% more token efficient.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tend to produce longer reasoning traces for problems on which humans also spend more time. This correspondence suggests a shared sensitivity to difficulty, yet difficult problems can invite both persistence and withdrawal. We distinguish difficulty registration, expressed in which problems elicit more deliberation, from the allocation of further work. We examine their relation in matched human and LRM data from visual abstraction, intuitive physics, and relational reasoning. On visual abstraction, model trace length tracks the human ordering of problems by duration. After item identity is controlled, successful human attempts last longer than failed attempts, while failed LRM attempts have longer traces than successful ones in the pooled model analysis. The estimated outcome slopes follow the same pattern in intuitive physics. In relational reasoning, successful attempts are longer in separate human and model analyses. Fitting the two groups together with shared item effects yields a human-LRM difference in the relation between duration and outcome. Human grid actions connect longer attempts with sustained task engagement. Failed LRM traces contain more hedging or repetition after length is controlled, with the form of the difference varying across tasks. A resource-rational account explains how the expected reducibility of uncertainty and the value assigned to further computation can produce different patterns of persistence despite similar sensitivity to difficulty. Agreement about which problems require more deliberation can therefore coexist with different patterns of persistence on those problems.

Achieving strong optimization generalization across diverse optimization problems while requiring limited training resources remains a challenging problem for optimization-oriented large language models (LLMs). Existing approaches typically rely on large-scale supervised datasets, costly reasoning annotations, and expensive intermediate step verification, resulting in substantial training overhead. To address these challenges, we propose MiniOpt, a reinforcement learning framework that learns to solve optimization problems through an "reasoning-to-model-and-solve" paradigm. MiniOpt decomposes optimization reasoning into structured optimization modeling and executable solver generation. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce OptReward, a reward function with hierarchical score structure that jointly evaluates formulation and solution, enabling effective policy learning without expert demonstrations. We further develop an optimization-oriented policy optimization strategy that improves exploration efficiency and stabilizes reinforcement learning for compact models. Extensive experiments show that MiniOpt-3B exhibits strong optimization generalization across various optimization types, problem scenarios, and task domains. For models with fewer than 10B parameters, MiniOpt series achieves the highest average solving accuracy (SA). For models with more than 10B parameters, MiniOpt still shows competitive performance. These results suggest that optimization-oriented reward design and reinforcement learning provide an effective pathway for developing compact optimization-specialized language models with strong optimization generalization capabilities. The code is available at https://github.com/Hsiang-1/MiniOpt.

Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts. It is also generally believed that this more "deliberative" mode should improve alignment and safety, by providing the model a safe space to consider whether its planned answer to a request violates its safety principles. We present evidence that this intuition is not always correct. Across frontier open-weight reasoning models spanning GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, we find that the eventual refusal/compliance outcome is already strongly predictable via a trained head on the first token's hidden representation ($0.84$-$0.95$ AUROC and $\sim88\%$ balanced accuracy for predicting refusal/compliance) before any visible thinking. The thinking process turns out to be more akin to prefix completion than to deliberative revision, with the final outcome rarely changing after the first $\sim20\%$ of thinking, despite giving the appearance of deliberation at the text level ($\sim74\%$ of text-level deliberations occur when the response distribution is already locked to one refusal/compliance side). We also find that existing inference-time and training-based safety interventions, despite being motivated by the goal of inducing deliberation, largely shift model behavior toward over-refusal while suppressing already-scarce deliberation signals. Our results suggest that safety behavior in current reasoning models is much less deliberative than commonly assumed, and highlight the need for methods that induce real safety deliberation.

Reasoning language models are increasingly asked not only to answer difficult questions, but also to estimate their likelihood of success. Existing methods typically elicit confidence only once: either before thinking or after answering. We argue that confidence in reasoning models is state-dependent: before thinking, confidence should estimate the chance of the model correctly solving the prompt, while after thinking it should predict whether the realized answer is likely to be correct. This distinction determines the appropriate supervision target: prompt-level success should supervise confidence estimates made after seeing the prompt, while individual answer-level correctness should supervise confidence estimates made after answering. We introduce CALIBER (Calibration Before and After Reasoning), which elicits both estimates and supervises each with the target matched to its information state. Under this unified protocol, CALIBER reduces Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by 52.5% over the strongest single-confidence baseline on BigMathDigits for the 7B model, while achieving the best Brier score and AUROC, and remains within 2.1 points of the best accuracy. Further, on a larger 30B model, CALIBER achieves the best ECE on BigMathDigits while remaining competitive in Brier score and AUROC. Out of distribution, it achieves the best ECE and Brier score on GPQA and TriviaQA, and remains competitive on SimpleQA. Ablations further show that this position-target alignment is most beneficial under distribution shift where it consistently reduces calibration error across all out-of-distribution benchmarks.

The emergence of Large Reasoning Models has introduced exceptionally long Chain-of-Thought traces, creating a transparency burden where critical logic is often buried under massive procedural text. To address this, we present ReasoningLens, an open-source framework designed for the hierarchical visualization and diagnostic auditing of complex reasoning chains. ReasoningLens addresses information necropsy by: (1) structuring traces into interactive hierarchies that separate high-level strategy from low-level execution; (2) leveraging an agentic auditor for automated error detection and tool-augmented verification; and (3) synthesizing systemic reasoning profiles to reveal model-specific blind spots. By transforming unstructured walls of text into actionable insights, ReasoningLens provides a modular foundation for interpreting, debugging, and optimizing the next generation of reasoning-centric AI.

Hybrid reasoning models can answer directly or spend extra tokens on extended thinking. A practical router should choose between these modes for each query, so easy problems avoid unnecessary reasoning and hard problems receive enough budget to finish the answer. Existing routers move in this direction, but they typically require labeled training data or fix thinking budgets up front, ignoring answer-level evidence from the model itself. We introduce DART, a training-free routing framework that samples two cheap no-think drafts, accepts direct answering when the drafts agree, and predicts a thinking budget from draft entropy when they disagree. Across the main comparisons, DART preserves or improves always-thinking accuracy in most settings while reducing thinking-token use. Accuracy improves by up to +9.0 points on Olympiad-level math and by up to +22.5 points on code under execution-based equivalence, while thinking-token use drops by 32-73%. The Stage~1 signal extends across model scales (0.6B--32B), model families, and API-only hosted settings, with no labeled data and no gradient updates required. Our code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/DART.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that reinforcement fine-tuning of pretrained base models can lead to significant gains in reasoning performance at inference time. In this work, we theoretically analyze why reinforcement fine-tuning induces better reasoning ability than purely supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods. We model chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning as a pathfinding problem on graphs and compare the popular method of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) against traditional SFT. We prove that SFT, when trained on golden shortest paths without negative examples, fails to learn how to efficiently backtrack. In contrast, an RLVR-trained model can learn how to efficiently backtrack from dead ends using only outcome reward. This leads to an exponential separation in inference-time compute between the two methods, and demonstrates that RLVR leads the model to learn the location of difficult decisions in a reasoning chain, ultimately allowing for better allocation of inference-time compute. Finally, we show that the reasoning traces of an RLVR model can be distilled to train a base model to backtrack efficiently as well.

Training large language models to reason efficiently is a critical challenge. While integrating length-penalizing rewards into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) aims to reduce verbosity, it frequently triggers reward collapse, severely degrading reasoning capabilities. Through a systematic evaluation of various reward configurations, we identify the root mechanism: GRPO's group normalization creates divergent advantages when incorrect answers receive continuous length penalties. Consequently, methods penalizing the length of incorrect answers are structurally prone to collapse under sustained optimization. Furthermore, restricting penalties exclusively to correct answers avoids this primary failure, but leaves the model susceptible to a stochastic collapse driven by response over-compression. To robustly prevent both failure modes, we propose ACOER (Adaptive Correct-Only Efficiency Reward). ACOER eliminates the structural penalty loop by isolating brevity bonuses to correct completions and prevents stochastic compression via dynamic budget normalization and control-loop penalty adjustments. Evaluated across diverse mathematical reasoning benchmarks, ACOER improves overall accuracy compared to the base model while reducing token generation by over 60%, establishing a fundamentally stable approach for efficiency-aware optimization.

There are many reasons one may want to edit a model's chain of thought (CoT) -- e.g., to prefill it with reasoning from a stronger model or to remove steps that may yield unsafe outputs. The success of these interventions plausibly depends on a model's inability to notice them, as the model may alter its behavior if it suspects tampering. In this work, we study whether recent reasoning models are able to detect such interventions on their CoTs under a variety of conditions: both during reasoning and after it, and when prefilled both with their own CoTs and with those of other models. Broadly, we find that (i) models exhibit only very modest detection accuracy; (ii) models struggle to identify how their CoT was modified; and (iii) models are about as good at detecting changes to their own CoTs as to those of other models.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) distillation transfers multi-step reasoning from large reasoning models to smaller students, but verbose teacher traces inflate both training and inference cost. Existing CoT compression methods fall into two families, selective pruning and generative rewriting, yet prior studies have left key factors entangled: granularity is confounded with importance criteria in pruning, restructuring level is rarely isolated in rewriting, and compression budgets are not systematically evaluated across domains or regimes. We recast CoT compression along three dimensions: importance criterion, restructuring level, and compression budget. Sweeping these across two model families, Math and General domains, and Long-/Short-CoT regimes, we find that (i) importance criterion utility is strictly governed by granularity: step-level criteria converge on a shared reasoning backbone, while token-level pruning requires symbol-aware signals to preserve the logical core; (ii) restructuring level inverts across domains: Math degrades monotonically with structural disruption, while aggressive rewriting acts as a denoiser on General tasks; (iii) training-time compression does not necessarily translate to inference-time savings: Long-CoT students retain verbose habits despite concise supervision, making the training ratio an optimistic lower bound on deployment cost. These findings yield condition-aware guidelines for matching compression to deployment context.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has driven substantial progress in large language model reasoning, but relies on ground-truth supervision that is costly or infeasible, especially in coding tasks. Recent work addresses this by deriving rewards from a model's own signals, such as majority voting or confidence-based scores, achieving notable success on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. However, code generation poses distinct challenges: programs are structurally complex, semantically equivalent solutions may differ syntactically, and verification typically requires execution. Whether these intrinsic reward methods transfer effectively to code remains unexplored. In this work, we present a systematic empirical study of intrinsic reward methods for code generation. We conduct extensive experiments on LiveCodeBench, systematically evaluating representative certainty-based Reinforcement Learning from Internal Feedback (RLIF) approaches under different training scenarios and hyperparameter settings. Our experiments reveal that certainty-based methods yield early gains but inevitably collapse: models progressively shorten outputs and lose reasoning capability, with collapse speed sensitive to sample size and temperature. When used to initialize RLVR training, RLIF pre-training offers no significant improvement over training from scratch. We also provide actionable recommendations for using intrinsic rewards for training code reasoning models. Our study shows both the promise and limitations of intrinsic reward methods for code, informing future work on code models and agents.

Large reasoning models rely on long chain-of-thought to achieve strong performance, but applying such reasoning uniformly incurs high computational cost. Existing efficiency-oriented methods attempt to shorten or mix reasoning strategies, yet often degrade reasoning capability. We identify the root cause as sequence-level coupling between efficiency incentives and correctness optimization, which implicitly penalizes long but correct reasoning trajectories. To address this issue, we propose Adaptive Dual-Process Thinking (ADaPT), a token-level dual-process framework that explicitly decouples efficiency and correctness signals during training. ADaPT introduces a mode-selection token to control fast and slow reasoning, applying efficiency-related rewards exclusively to this token to avoid penalizing correct long reasoning while encouraging efficiency when appropriate. Moreover, ADaPT enables precise and continuous control over the efficiency-performance trade-off at inference time: by adjusting the generation probability of the mode-selection token, a single trained model can smoothly move along the efficiency-performance Pareto frontier. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ADaPT significantly reduces inference cost while maintaining strong reasoning performance across multiple benchmarks.

Long-form chain-of-thought reasoning can improve LLM performance on complex tasks, but models often continue generating unnecessary reasoning after a correct answer has emerged. We refer to this behavior as overthinking. We study this phenomenon from the perspective of GRPO-style reinforcement learning (RL) post-training, framing it as a training-time credit-assignment problem rather than merely a decoding-time stopping problem. In rollouts sampled at the onset of GRPO training, we observe that successful trajectories can exhibit a slightly higher degree of overthinking than unsuccessful trajectories for the same prompts. This early imbalance provides a starting point for an undesirable feedback loop: because GRPO assigns sequence-level credit, it cannot distinguish the solution-reaching prefix from the unnecessary continuation that lengthens a successful trajectory. Both receive positive update signal, allowing the initial imbalance to grow into more severe overthinking during training. To address this issue, we introduce Dynamic Rollout Editing (DRE), a training-time intervention for successful trajectories that continue thinking after answer emergence. DRE preserves the accepted verified prefix, edits the remaining thinking, and prefers the edited trajectory within the same RL group, weakening the preference signal for unnecessary thinking without penalizing the reasoning needed to reach the answer. Experiments across diverse tasks show the effectiveness of DRE.

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) excel at complex tasks, they remain highly vulnerable to sophisticated jailbreaks and direct harmful queries. To address this vulnerability, prior works depend heavily on external manual data annotation for safety alignment. However, we observe that LRMs can inherently identify safety risks when being re-presented with original queries alongside their own reasoning trajectories -- a capability we term Latent Safety Awareness. To leverage this safety awareness, we first employ Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) to explicitly induce safe tags to trigger safety analysis and guidance following the initial reasoning content for unsafe queries, while preserving standard responses for general queries to ensure adaptive triggering. Subsequently, we apply Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to further enhance the correctness and stability of the safety analysis and guidance. Notably, responses required for both training stages are entirely generated by models being optimized. With (Safe Trigger) SFT and DPO, experimental results demonstrate significant safety enhancement. For example, the Attack Success Rate (ASR) of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B, on average, drops 24.65% and 36.72% on harmful and jailbreak benchmarks, respectively. Finally, our Safe Trigger method exerts almost no negative impact on general performance or user experience.

We propose agentic automata learning to evaluate the extent to which tool-calling LLM agents can uncover hidden environments through interaction. In our setup, an agent should uncover a hidden deterministic finite automaton (DFA) by interacting with an oracle through (1) membership queries ("Does this string belong to the target language?") and (2) equivalence queries ("Is this the target DFA?"). This yields a scalable testbed with controlled task complexity, measurable interaction efficiency, and strong baselines (classic automata-learning algorithms). Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that performance drops sharply as DFA size increases. Reasoning models are markedly stronger than non-reasoning models, yet trajectory analyses reveal recurring failures in query planning, evidence integration, and hypothesis construction. Overall, our results show that current LLM agents can sometimes perform non-trivial interactive discovery, but remain far less robust and efficient than classic algorithms for the task.

Scientific reasoning models for biology combine language models with foundation models trained on multimodal biological data, including DNA, RNA, and proteins. These models are built through post-training, yet how each stage shapes reasoning and generalization remains poorly understood. We study when post-training improves performance and when it induces over-specialization. Across genomics, transcriptomics, and proteins, we train and evaluate more than 100 biological reasoning models under controlled variation in backbone, continued pre-training (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL), measuring both in-domain (ID) and out-of-domain (OOD) performance. We find that each post-training stage reshapes generalization in a distinct way rather than contributing uniform gains. CPT improves downstream performance by aligning models with biological language. SFT consistently increases ID performance but causes OOD performance to peak early and decline as models fit the training distribution. RL, when applied to strong SFT checkpoints with aligned rewards, improves OOD performance and partially recovers generalization. These results show that biological reasoning does not improve monotonically with additional supervision or compute. Instead, performance depends on how training stages are composed. Under fixed post-training budgets, the strongest ID-OOD trade-off comes from brief SFT, larger RL allocations, and asymmetric adaptation capacity across stages.

Knowledge distillation from powerful reasoning models is widely used to improve Small Language Models (SLMs) on mathematical reasoning, often assuming that traces with higher reward model scores provide more useful supervision. We identify a counterintuitive \textbf{Quality-Utility Paradox} in mathematical reasoning distillation. Data refined or synthesized by a stronger Oracle obtains higher perceived quality according to reward models, yet consistently underperforms traces generated by the SLM itself and selected through rejection sampling across Qwen2.5, LLaMA-3, and DeepSeek families. Our analysis shows that Oracle refinement couples logical repair with distributional drift away from the SLM's native reasoning distribution. This drift increases the learner's adaptation cost and can outweigh the benefit of improved reasoning logic. To test this mechanism, we introduce \textbf{Style-Aligned Refinement}, which preserves the native trajectory of the SLM while retaining logical repair from the Oracle. This intervention lowers adaptation cost and restores downstream utility. These findings suggest that effective mathematical reasoning distillation should jointly optimize perceived solution quality and learner-data compatibility, rather than relying solely on reward-model scores. The datasets and code are available at https://github.com/Dracoqhl/Quality-Utility-Paradox.

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) show strong performance in English, they often fail to reason in the language of the query, a phenomenon known as language collapse. Existing RL-based fixes typically add a binary language fidelity reward to the accuracy objective, yet still incur trade-off in accuracy, mid-trace code-switching, and excessive token usage. In this work, we propose AdaMame, a two-stage training recipe for multilingual mathematical reasoning that addresses these limitations by adaptively aligning the reasoning language to the query language without compromising accuracy. The first SFT stage fine-tunes on non-MT reasoning traces across five languages to establish multilingual reasoning capability. In the subsequent RL stage, we introduce AdaMame-GRPO, an adaptation of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in which a query-conditioned alignment factor grows progressively during training, guiding the model to first explore diverse reasoning languages before exploiting reasoning in the query language. Evaluated across two benchmarks, two LRMs, and 12 languages, AdaMame-GRPO achieves Pareto-optimal performance across reasoning accuracy, language fidelity, and token efficiency over all baselines, with the strongest gains on out-of-domain, lower-resource languages.

By incorporating test-time compute scaling, large reasoning models (LRMs) can solve complex problems through explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning processes. However, they often suffer from overthinking, resulting in redundant token outputs and degraded accuracy. Current methods to mitigate this issue remain limited: training-based approaches require substantial computational resources, while training-free methods rely on well-crafted prompts or unreliable confidence signals. In this work, we investigate early stopping from the perspective of attention distributions and propose a simple method, ASAG, which infers the model's reasoning state and adaptively adjusts the generation strategy. The proposed framework is training-free and plug-and-play, enabling seamless integration into existing LRMs. Extensive experiments on nine benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements across mainstream LRMs with varying parameter scales, including the DeepSeek-R1-Distill and Qwen3 series. Specifically, ASAG improves average accuracy by 3.2% while reducing the number of generated tokens by nearly 40% across all reasoning tasks on Qwen3-8B.

Large reasoning models typically follow a read-then-think paradigm: they observe the complete input, reason over a static context, and then produce the answer. Yet many real-world scenarios are inherently dynamic, such as audio and video stream, where information arrives as a continuous stream and models must reason, update, and respond under partial observations. Recent streaming reasoning methods allow models to think while reading, but they largely rely on supervised imitation of pre-constructed trajectories, which limits their flexibility. In this paper, we propose AdaSR, an adaptive streaming reasoning framework that enables models to reason during input streaming and perform final deliberation once the stream is complete, learning when to think, and how much computation to allocate across different stages. To optimize this hierarchical reasoning process, we introduce Hierarchical Relative Policy Optimization (HRPO), which decomposes policy optimization into streaming reasoning and deep reasoning phases, providing more fine-grained advantage assignment instead of uniformly distributing a single sequence-level advantage over all tokens. HRPO integrates format, accuracy, and adaptive thinking rewards to enforce valid reasoning protocols, preserve final task performance, and encourage latency-aware computation allocation. Experiments show that AdaSR achieves a better balance among reasoning accuracy, computational efficiency, and streaming latency compared with supervised fine-tuning baseline. We release our code at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/StreamingLLM/tree/main/AdaSR.

Mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and suicide remain urgent global challenges, where timely and accurate assessment is critical for effective intervention. Recently, large language models have been explored for mental health assessment. However, existing general-purpose post-training methods do not align with the cognitive processes of human assessment, which may lead to unreliable reasoning outcomes. To bridge this gap, we propose Cognitive Relative Policy Optimization (CRPO), a reinforcement learning framework tailored for the mental health domain. CRPO extends group relative policy optimization by integrating stage-dependent uncertainty modeling into the policy optimization process. Specifically, we introduce a stage-wise entropy regularization mechanism that encourages broad exploration in early reasoning phases and progressively enforces confident decision-making in later stages, mimicking the human cognitive shift from uncertainty to certainty. In addition, inspired by cognitive appraisal theory, we formalize cognitive reasoning stages, thereby guiding theory-grounded interpretable inference. Experiments on 8 mental health datasets show that CRPO achieves an average improvement of 10.4 percentage points in weighted F1-score over the best reinforcement learning baseline. Furthermore, the CRPO-trained model Mental-R1 demonstrates clear advantages compared with existing large language models on reasoning-intensive cases, suggesting that CRPO enhances reasoning capabilities for mental health assessment.

Reinforcement learning has rapidly emerged as a key component in the training of reasoning and coding models, yet it remains poorly understood from a mechanistic perspective. We study how and through what underlying processes capabilities are acquired or enhanced via reinforcement learning post-training. Our analysis, based on controlled math reasoning experiments with Qwen-2.5-1.5B, reveals two core mechanisms: strategy selection and strategy improvement. Our results highlight the role of SFT data and reinforcement learning data in activating these mechanisms, in particular showing how supervising the model on diverse reasoning strategies can enable strategy selection and how increasing difficulty in reinforcement learning data can enable strategy improvement. Taken together, our results provide mechanistic insight into RL training and suggest practical interventions to continue scaling reasoning capabilities.

Trust in an AI system is often anchored by explanations of how it works, which one then uses to forecast its behavior on new inputs. For large reasoning models (LRMs), this conventional route is particularly difficult to follow: explanation methods for single token generations do not naturally generalize to long trajectories, and the trajectories themselves are often not faithful when read as natural language. We propose an alternative that bypasses the explanation step: treat behavior forecasting as a learnable task and train Behavior Forecasters that operates on a single reasoning trajectory to make the same forecasts one would typically seek from an explanation. The forecaster's training data is obtained by querying the LRM with no human annotation, and its inference is done in a single forward pass. We instantiate this approach on two tasks: how likely the LRM is to repeat its answer on re-runs, and how removing parts of the input changes its answer. We evaluate this approach on both tasks across three diverse reasoning datasets and find that trained Behavior Forecasters are more accurate than GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus-4.6 reading the same trajectories as naive readers, at a small fraction of their inference cost. We find that fine-tuning the backbone end-to-end and initializing it from the target LRM are each necessary for strong performance. These results show that the reasoning trajectory carries information about the LRM's future behavior that goes beyond what naive reading conveys.

Deployed large reasoning models (LRMs) often behave unexpectedly. Test-time steering controls LRM outputs by intervening on their hidden representations, but it can degrade output quality. We argue that prior steering work implicitly relies on internal features that detect behavior in already generated text. We show that these detection features are poor predictors of future behavioral outcomes, and thus not the natural intervention target. Instead, we train activation probes to predict future behavior likelihoods from intermediate reasoning steps. These probes predict the most likely behavior with 64%-91% accuracy, revealing a separate type of internal prediction features. Building on these prediction features, we introduce a text-level steering method, Future Probe Controlled Generation. FPCG samples multiple candidate sentences and chooses the best one according to a probe predicting the future behavior likelihood. This enables steering with almost no output quality degradation. FPCG also enables steering in several evaluations where activation steering fails. These results show that distinguishing detection and prediction features enables a more nuanced approach to controlling LRM behaviors.

Long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories in large language model (LLM) reasoning cause severe inference bottlenecks due to rapid key-value (KV) cache growth. Current decoding-time compression methods mitigate this issue via token eviction, but typically assume a uniform budget distribution across all layers and heads. In contrast, existing non-uniform budget allocation methods are predominantly designed for the static prompt prefill phase, and they do not capture the stepwise context demands of autoregressive reasoning. To bridge this gap, we propose ReasonAlloc, a training-free framework that recasts decoding-time KV compression as a hierarchical budget allocation problem. ReasonAlloc operates at two complementary levels: an offline layer-wise preallocation strategy captures an architecture-driven demand pattern which we call ``\textit{Reasoning Wave}'', while an online head-wise strategy reallocates resources during decoding to information-rich heads based on real-time utility. Evaluations on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH-500, AIME~2024) using DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B, and AceReason-14B show that ReasonAlloc outperforms uniform-budget R-KV, SnapKV, and Pyramid-RKV (a baseline enforcing a static, monotonically decreasing layer budget), with the largest gains at small budgets (128-512 tokens). ReasonAlloc is plug-and-play with existing token-eviction policies and introduces negligible inference-time overhead.

Instruction-tuned LLMs are increasingly converted into reasoning models through post-training to improve multi-step task performance. This conversion is usually optimized for reasoning accuracy, without explicitly preserving the alignment behavior of the instruction-tuned model, such as safe refusal, bias avoidance, and privacy protection. We ask: does this conversion preserve alignment? We study this question through a trustworthiness audit and find that it is not behavior-preserving by default. For a systematic analysis, we compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against matched instruction-tuned baselines across six trustworthiness dimensions: safety, toxicity, stereotyping and bias, machine ethics, privacy, and out-of-distribution robustness. We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions, including increased toxicity, amplified stereotyping, miscalibrated refusal, and contextual privacy leakage. These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence. Overall, our results point to the broader conclusion that trustworthiness metrics are essential for evaluating reasoning models and should be reported alongside gains in reasoning capability.

Autonomous web navigation remains challenging for LLM agents, and the strongest generalist systems rely on proprietary reasoning models whose inference cost is prohibitive for the repetitive tasks where such agents would be most useful. We argue this gap stems not from insufficient model capability but from agent architectures that fail to replicate three human cognitive advantages: selective attention to relevant page regions, persistent memory of website structure, and procedural fluency with common interaction patterns. We introduce WebChallenger, a web agent framework that addresses each gap through architecture design rather than model scale, built around PageMem: a structured page representation deterministically constructed from the DOM that exposes each page as a hierarchy of semantic sections with short summaries. On this shared substrate we build three mechanisms that mirror the three cognitive advantages: a divide-and-conquer observation pipeline that lets the agent skim section summaries and extract details only from task-relevant regions; a lightweight exploration and memory system that traverses each website once to build a reusable map of pages and element behaviors; and compound action workflows that collapse common multi-step interactions into single agent actions, handling partial state changes automatically. Because all three operate over PageMem, the framework generalizes across websites without site-specific adapters. Using off-the-shelf open-weight models without fine-tuning, our system achieves 56.3% on WebArena, 48.7% on VisualWebArena, 51.0% on Online-Mind2Web, and 70.9% on WorkArena, approaching frontier proprietary systems at a fraction of the cost. Our code is released at https://github.com/jayoohwang1/webchallenger

Math reasoning benchmarks have proliferated, yet most lack a per-item difficulty signal grounded in actual human performance. We introduce KCSAT-ML, a decade (2014-2025) of Korean College Scholastic Ability Test (KCSAT; Suneung) mathematics: 664 problems with a 339-item core set carrying official per-item error rates from nationwide cohorts of hundreds of thousands of examinees. We pair the benchmark with Difficulty-aligned Reasoning Gain (DRG): a score-orthogonal metric that asks whether a model's mistakes concentrate on the items humans found hard, or on items humans found easy. Together they expose, across a wide range of VLMs (and LLMs via OCR), three patterns: (i) low-budget accuracy collapses on the high-human-error tail at every model size; (ii) test-time scaling (TTS) raises token use roughly linearly with cohort error rate, while accuracy gains follow a non-monotonic curve; (iii) within a single family, TTS flips between anti-scaling on the hardest items and overthinking on easier ones -- two faces of the same alignment failure. On DRG, models with near-identical accuracy can sit at near-opposite values: one model gets wrong what humans also find hard, while another solves the hardest items yet fails on items humans find easy -- a contrast that aggregate accuracy hides. Our code and dataset builder will be open-sourced at https://github.com/naver-ai/KCSAT-ML.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often improve math and coding performance, but their effect on instruction following is unclear. We study IFEval with Qwen3 models (1.7B-32B), using same-weights Thinking ON/OFF controls; four Hunyuan models provide directional cross-family support. Aggregate pass-rate changes are small (-0.55 to -3.52 pp), yet 10-20% of prompts switch between pass and fail across modes, suggesting that thinking changes the pattern of errors--some prompts improve while others worsen--rather than uniformly degrading performance. Under a post-hoc Qwen3-derived grouping, constraint types separate into Planning (global counting, structure, coordination), which improves at the class level under thinking, and Precision (exact local form), which consistently worsens; the class-level Planning/Precision sign pattern holds directionally for all four Hunyuan models despite Hunyuan's opposite aggregate direction. Thinking also changes final-answer length; matched-length analyses substantially reduce the Precision drop, but a residual penalty remains. Analyzing thinking traces with a cross-encoder relevance metric reveals three patterns: Neutral shows a positive relevance-compliance link (r approximately 0.15); Planning shows near-zero predictive correlation (r approximately 0.02) despite measurable trace engagement, consistent with an execution gap between CE-measured trace relevance and final-answer compliance; Precision shows a small negative correlation (r approximately -0.05), with failing instances having higher mean relevance than passing ones. Activation patching across four model sizes (1.7B-14B) shows that Precision flip instances are more often restored than Planning flip instances (32-58% vs. 14-40% mean layer-restoration), with the largest gap at 14B (about 30 pp).

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted increasing attention for their ability to solve complex mathematical problems by generating extended reasoning chains. In this work, we focus on two critical yet underexplored aspects of the reasoning process: reasoning transitions capturing the distinct transitions between reasoning steps and answer candidates reflecting the variety of solution paths produced by the model. We collectively define these two aspects as thinking schemata. We observe a correlation between the diversity of thinking schemata and model performance, which motivates us to enhance diversity as a means to further improve reasoning potential. To this end, we propose Diverse Schemata Policy Optimization (DiScO), a framework that first endows the model with schemata awareness, then encourages diversity through reinforcement learning, and further promotes diverse reasoning at inference time. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that DiScO consistently outperforms standard group relative policy optimization. Beyond accuracy, human-annotated analyses show that DiScO substantially improves the model's ability to recover from erroneous initial attempts. Overall, our work suggests the important role that diversity of the thinking schemata plays and points to scaling along the diversity dimension as a promising research direction.

Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers. This survey provides a unified account of the field's evolution, from early rule-based math word problem (MWP) solvers and template-driven geometry systems, through neural expression generation and LLM prompting, to contemporary reasoning models, multi-agent systems, neuro-symbolic theorem provers, and verified discovery workflows. We organize the landscape along four axes: (i) informal reasoning over text and diagrams, spanning MWP solving, multimodal geometry, and VLMs; (ii) formal reasoning in proof assistants, including autoformalization, tactic prediction, compiler-guided repair, and proof search; (iii) mathematical discovery, where systems propose constructions, improve bounds, or assist attacks on open problems; and (iv) the inference and training-time techniques, including CoT prompting, tool use, process reward models, and RLVR, that increasingly connect generation with verification. We catalog major benchmarks across grade-school arithmetic, competition mathematics, geometry, formal proving, multimodal and multilingual reasoning, and expert evaluation, and we examine benchmark saturation, contamination, reporting mismatches, and the distinction between pass@1, majority voting, and verifier-assisted pass@$k$. We critically assess failure modes: brittleness under perturbation, reward hacking, multimodal grounding failures, fragile formalization, and the energy cost of reasoning-scale inference. Drawing on recent perspectives from working mathematicians, we identify future directions centered on verified-discovery workflows, reasoning efficiency, and infrastructure to make AI-assisted formalization broadly usable. Companion materials: https://github.com/Starscream-11813/awesome-AI4Math.

Large language models frequently fail in a characteristic way: rather than acknowledging ignorance, they produce fluent but incorrect answers to questions that lie beyond their knowledge boundaries. We introduce \textbf{Structured Ignorance Certificates} (SICs), a JSON-formatted output schema that demands a model explicitly name the missing domain intersection, enumerate required concepts, and propose a productive retrieval query rather than hallucinating an answer. To train models to produce high-quality SICs we construct a 7,347-sample \emph{Unknown-Unknown} (UU) dataset by prompting Qwen3-14B to stitch together questions from seven domains (physics, biology, engineering, CS, economics, medical, legal) into novel cross-domain queries that no single-domain expert could answer. We fine-tune a 14B-parameter model with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using a composite reward that combines retrieval utility, concept specificity, and output-format validity. A paraphrase-divergence probe trained on model responses confirms that SIC-tuned outputs systematically exhibit higher unknown-unknown probability scores. Evaluation on 735 held-out UU questions achieves a 99.46% JSON validity rate, a mean Certificate Specificity Score of 0.967, and a 3.6% ROUGE-L improvement over the base model on retrieval-grounded generation -- demonstrating that explicit epistemic structuring is a learnable and measurable capability.

Recent advances in generative AI, especially powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), raise concerns over the interpretability, safety and sustainability of these large and opaque AI models. The power of such architectures is derived not only from the scalability of deep neural networks, but also massively parallel hardware such as GPU clusters. The diffuse nature of deep neural networks gives them great function-approximation capability when provided with sufficient training data but imposes a cost in interpretability and computational efficiency. Observing that localised machine learning (ML) models tend to be more interpretable and computationally efficient than deep neural networks on small datasets, we reason by analogy that similar advantages may apply to specific localised hardware ML architectures. We argue that localised architectures with lower bandwidth but higher expressivity per node have the potential to be fundamentally more interpretable than deep neural networks running on GPU clusters while remaining competitive for smaller datasets. We then evaluate the suitability of various hardware ML paradigms for implementing such localised architectures and evaluate their per-node expressivity, energy efficiency and practical maturity of the technology required.

Reasoning language models deployed in agentic workflows must follow an instruction hierarchy: when instructions from different sources conflict, the model should obey the highest-privilege applicable instruction. Existing benchmarks largely measure this behavior end-to-end, asking whether the final response is compliant. However, a non-compliant response can arise from several distinct failures: the model may fail to identify the relevant instructions in context, fail to resolve conflicts among identified instructions, or correctly resolve the conflict in its reasoning while still producing a violating response. We introduce a white-box diagnostic framework that localizes instruction hierarchy failures into instruction identification, conflict resolution, and response realization, making failures more interpretable. We evaluate three reasoning models--Gemma-4-31B-IT, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6--on long-context adaptations of IHEval and IHChallenge, and find that the dominant failure mode varies across models, tasks, and context length. Building on the observation that models can often detect conflicts and output violations when explicitly prompted, we propose two training-free self-monitoring mechanisms: a parallel input monitor for low-latency conflict detection before generation, and a sequential output monitor for response-level review and repair. Across Gemma-4-31B-IT, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and GPT-5.3, the strongest monitor reduces rule-following non-compliance by 81-99%, with GPT-5.3 reductions of 86% under static attacks and 45% under adaptive attacks.

Many efforts to ensure frontier AI models are safe rely on monitoring their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. If models become able to perform sufficiently complex reasoning internally, without explicit thinking tokens, this would undermine such oversight. We measure how well frontier models reason without CoT across a suite of over 30,000 questions spanning 43 benchmarks in domains including math, coding, puzzles, causality, theory-of-mind, and strategic reasoning. To compare models against humans, we estimate the $50\%$-task-completion time horizon (TH): the human time required for tasks a model completes with $50\%$ success rate. We complement this with a $50\%$ reasoning token horizon: the minimum number of o3-mini reasoning tokens needed for tasks a model solves with $50\%$ success rate. We find that the no-CoT $50\%$ TH of frontier models has been doubling roughly every year over the past six years, with GPT-5.5's TH reaching over 3 minutes and reasoning token horizon exceeding 1,500 tokens. Our median estimates predict that frontier no-CoT THs could exceed 7 minutes by 2028, and 25 minutes by 2030, though these projections carry substantial uncertainty. We recommend frontier developers track this explicitly.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable performance improvements by iteratively reflecting, exploring, and executing complex tasks, yet suffer from inefficiencies due to redundant reasoning, known as "overthinking". Existing methods to mitigate this issue either rely on static difficulty estimates or require task-specific training, and thus fail to adapt to the dynamic complexity during reasoning. In this work, we empirically show that the problem difficulty evolves dynamically throughout the reasoning process and is linearly encoded in the LRM's step-level embeddings. Building on this insight, we propose DyCon, a training-free framework that leverages latent step-level representations to explicitly model the evolving task difficulty, enabling the dynamic control of reasoning depth to mitigate the overthinking issue. Extensive experiments conducted on four models ranging from 4B to 32B, and across twelve benchmarks in math reasoning, general question answering, and coding tasks demonstrate that DyCon significantly enhances reasoning efficiency by reducing redundant steps without sacrificing accuracy or generalization. Code is available at https://github.com/yu-lin-li/DyCon.

Recent advancements in reasoning language models have been driven by Reinforcement Learning (RL) fine-tuning. Most often, these rely on the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) algorithm or modifications thereof to steer the models to produce Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces. The final answer can only be verified, and the reward assigned, after the CoT trace is complete, making it a delayed reward problem. GRPO and its modifications correspond to Monte Carlo methods in standard RL, which are known to suffer from high variance. A possible solution to this problem is the redistribution of rewards through credit assignment, where segments of the CoT trace that are important for arriving at the desirable solution are emphasized by assigning a higher reward. While Monte Carlo sampling can be used to provide an unbiased estimate of intermediate state values, its computational overhead makes it unsuitable for train-time credit assignment in long contexts at high granularity. We introduce RREDCoT (Reward REDistribution for Chain of Thoughts), which utilizes the model itself to approximate the optimal reward redistribution without additional generation. We investigate the advantages of our method compared to MC sampling and several attribution methods. We further analyze several aspects relevant to the construction of the redistribution such as segmentation of CoT traces and state value estimation.

Reasoning models achieve strong performance on challenging tasks by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. Yet the internal structure of representation space when reasoning remains poorly understood: how do a model's hidden representations differ during thinking versus the embeddings of the input prompt, and can this structure be exploited to elicit stronger reasoning at inference time? We show that both input embeddings and thinking embeddings (mean-pooled last-layer hidden states over the prompt and reasoning trace, respectively) exhibit extremely high conicity, with all vectors clustering tightly around a single mean direction. Crucially, these mean input and thinking directions are non-collinear, with thinking embeddings occupying a geometrically distinct region of embedding space across many different models and benchmark tasks. This observation motivates casting the input-to-thinking transition as a rotation problem admitting a closed-form solution via orthogonal Procrustes analysis. We propose Rotate2Think, a training-free method that estimates this rotation from a small set of correctly solved examples and injects the resulting synthetic thinking vector between thinking delimiters at inference time, providing a geometric primer at the onset of the reasoning trace. Evaluated across multiple benchmarks and model families, Rotate2Think improves accuracy in 30 of 32 model-benchmark configurations across mathematics, science, and code tasks, and generalizes zero-shot to multimodal reasoning on MATH-Vision.

Reliable uncertainty communication is critical to the trustworthiness of LLMs, yet faithful calibration (FC)--the alignment between models' intrinsic and (linguistically) expressed confidence--is a persistent failure mode. This challenge is key for large reasoning models (LRMs), whose extended reasoning traces are often interpreted by users as evidence of deliberation, competence, and confidence. Despite the importance of FC and wide usage of LRMs, the extent to which LRMs can faithfully express their confidence remains poorly understood. Moreover, the prevailing paradigm to measure FC does not generalize well to the long chain-of-thought outputs generated by LRMs, which tend to lack clear step boundaries, involve inconsistent step structure, and encode complex conditional dependencies throughout the trace--complicating estimation of intrinsic confidence. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel framework to systematically quantify FC of LRMs. Our framework analyzes linguistic decisiveness relative to three sources of internal uncertainty, based on token probabilities, hidden states, and sampled response consistency. We also devise a prefix-conditioned sampling approach to control for conditional and structural variation across traces. Applying our framework to a diverse suite of leading models, datasets, and prompts, we find that faithful confidence expression is a significant challenge for LRMs. Reasoning behaviors do not automatically translate to improved FC, and prompt interventions for non-reasoning models do not improve faithfulness in the reasoning setting. Different confidence estimators further produce divergent assessments of the same traces, revealing fragility in prior evaluation methodologies. Taken together, our work establishes FC as a distinct reliability and alignment target for LRMs, particularly as such systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts.

Reasoning models improve accuracy through extended chains of thought, but their long outputs create a memory and compute bottleneck. KV cache eviction methods reduce this cost by evicting unimportant key-value pairs from the cache, yet they often yield worse accuracy than selection-based sparse attention alternatives, which keep the full KV cache. We identify key factors crucial to KV cache eviction accuracy. First, a small fraction of value states have abnormally large magnitudes, and evicting them causes catastrophic failure where models enter repetitive reasoning loops. Second, introducing stochasticity during eviction improves accuracy by increasing cache diversity. Based on these findings, we propose Value-aware Stochastic KV Cache Eviction (VaSE), a training-free recipe that protects large-magnitude value states and promotes diverse eviction decisions. Across six reasoning tasks, Qwen3 models using VaSE with 4x KV cache compression yield higher average accuracies than SOTA selection method at the same sparsity, while outperforming the strongest eviction method by more than 4%. Overall, VaSE bridges the gap between efficiency and accuracy, supporting FlashAttention2 and enabling a static memory footprint for reasoning models.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) are often evaluated using metrics such as final-answer accuracy or token count. However, identical scores on these metrics can hide fundamentally different reasoning structures. To address this limitation, we introduce a scalable LRM benchmark of logic puzzles and a pipeline that converts unstructured traces into verifiable reasoning graphs of claims and dependencies. This turns reasoning into a structured, measurable object whose topology can be quantitatively analyzed. Building on this, we define a reasoning efficiency metric that quantifies how concentrated the model's logical flow is. Our analysis on open-source reasoning models shows that structural measurements separate behaviors that token count and accuracy conflate, providing a practical tool for diagnosing failure modes and comparing how reasoning scales with puzzle difficulty.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in many tasks, yet they struggle with reliably following multiple instructions, either by failing to satisfy individual constraints or by struggling to balance competing constraints simultaneously. We formalize this challenge as the Constraint Adherence Problem (CAP). This paper introduces a novel framework that addresses CAP by representing instructions as a structured knowledge graph of constraints. Our approach, Constraint Relationship Graph Completion (CRGC), explicitly models relationships between constraints, identifies adherence challenges, and discovers ``bridge constraints'' that help the model better focus on and reconcile requirements. Bridge constraints act as auxiliary instructions that make primary constraints more salient and compatible. Unlike existing approaches that enhance instruction following through general training methods, CRGC specifically improves constraint satisfaction by leveraging the model's own knowledge to create better pathways for generation. Experiments across three popular instruction following datasets demonstrate that our approach reduces constraint violations by 39% compared to standard prompting while maintaining reasoning abilities of large reasoning models.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable progress thanks to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) on Chain-of-Thoughts (CoTs). However, since long CoTs naturally contain trial and errors and mainstream RLVR approaches choose outcome-correct CoT trajectories for memorization, the redundant explorations in long CoTs are inevitably reinforced, which results in the over-thinking issues of LRMs. Previous attempts to resolve this issue mainly give more advantage to shorter trajectories, yet their learning signals are still outcome-based and cannot reduce the memorization of redundant explorations in long CoTs. Therefore, we propose ThoughtFold, a framework that leverages fine-grained preference learning to mitigate redundant explorations for efficient reasoning. ThoughtFold employs an introspective strategy to identify redundancy within each correct trajectory, which yields a spectrum of candidate sub-trajectories. Leveraging this spectrum, we introduce a masked preference optimization objective that explicitly penalizes redundant explorations and encourages the model to directly bridge essential reasoning segments, effectively folding its reasoning chains into a more concise path. Extensive experiments show that ThoughtFold significantly enhances efficiency. It reduces the token usage of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B by approximately 56% while maintaining state-of-the-art accuracy.

Large reasoning models improve performance by generating extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but this behavior becomes inefficient when applied to LLM agents. Current LLM agents often generate verbose textual reasoning at every decision step and allocate reasoning effort nearly uniformly across turns, leading to substantial inefficiency in multi-turn agentic trajectories. We propose Adaptive Latent Agentic Reasoning (ALAR), a dual-mode framework that uses compact latent reasoning for routine turns and selectively escalates to explicit chain-of-thought when deeper deliberation is needed. ALAR learns latent reasoning by using the agent's actions as supervision anchors and is further optimized to use latent reasoning when it is sufficient for task success and reserve explicit CoT for harder decisions. Experiments on agentic search and tool-use benchmarks show that ALAR maintains comparable or better task accuracy while substantially reducing generated tokens by up to 43.6% in search and 84.6% in tool use. These results demonstrate that ALAR improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off of LLM agents by reducing unnecessary textual reasoning while preserving explicit deliberation for harder decision steps.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined. While recent evidence shows that additional reasoning can lead models to overthink, we ask: "Once a model has reached the correct answer, does further reasoning refine the solution, or deviate from it?" To study the dynamics after correctness, we introduce a prefix-level trajectory evaluation protocol grounded in reasoning sufficiency, defining the minimum reasoning budget required for a model to first generate the correct answer. This allows us to disentangle verbose overthinking, where additional reasoning is redundant but harmless, from harmful overthinking, where continued reasoning destabilizes an already-correct trajectory. Starting from multimodal benchmarks, we find that many instances considered reasoning-intensive require surprisingly little reasoning. Moreover, stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%, revealing that current models are limited not only by their ability to reason, but also by their inability to stop at the right time. Furthermore, while common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking (up to 50%), they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking. Failure analysis reveals that correctness deviations are mainly driven by logical drift and visual reinterpretation. Finally, we show that our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk. Code available at https://simonecaldarella.github.io/thinking-past-the-answer.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) rely on long reasoning traces, making inference expensive. While low-bit quantization reduces per-token decoding cost, we show that aggressive 2-bit inference can fail to deliver end-to-end speedup because instability in the generation process inflates total token count. Instead of merely lowering answer accuracy, 2-bit quantization often produces much longer traces with repetitive loops, budget exhaustion, delayed commitment, and unclosed reasoning segments. We analyze full reasoning traces of Qwen3 reasoning models across mathematical and commonsense benchmarks and show that accuracy degradation is tightly linked to these process-level failures. To address them, we introduce two lightweight controls: FP16 planning, which gives the 2-bit model a short high-precision outline, and loop rescue, which detects repetitive traces and either commits to an earlier answer or falls back to FP16. On MATH-500, loop rescue improves Qwen3-8B accuracy from 17.2% to 74.2%, while planning plus loop rescue improves Qwen3-32B from 65.0% to 87.2%. Overall, our results show that extreme low-bit reasoning becomes practical when its failures are treated as controllable generation pathologies: with lightweight detection and selective FP16 support, 2-bit inference can recover accuracy while preserving real end-to-end speed. Our code is available at: https://github.com/brain-lab-research/quantized-reasoning.

Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch. In contrast, large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems. How then do LRMs perform at evaluating reasons? We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning (VAIR) dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers, designed to isolate reasoning evaluation from the confound of reasoning production. Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs: frontier models score as low as 48% when evaluating VAIR solutions, despite near-perfect solution production. Why this enigma? Through chain-of-thought (CoT) analysis, we find evidence of an answer confirmation bias: LRMs often produce then check for the correct answer instead of carefully verifying each step, fabricating rationalizations even when noticing anomalous reasoning. Linear probes corroborate this, showing that while LRM activations encode some representation of valid reasoning, they fail to robustly represent VAIR solutions as invalid. Causal patching of the final answer's representations causes LRM verdicts and activations to flip, demonstrating that answer validity is responsible for models' confirmation biases. These findings indicate an outstanding limitation in dominant approaches to reasoning training, which incentivize LRMs to produce and confirm reasoning towards correct answers, but not to robustly evaluate the underlying reasons.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to deploy large language models efficiently, but its effect on reasoning models is not well understood. Across math, coding, and science QA, we find that aggressive PTQ reduces accuracy while increasing chain-of-thought (CoT) length. Surprisingly, we show that in up to 52% of the quantized models' failures, models reach the right answer in intermediate reasoning steps but do not output it as a final answer. To understand why quantization leads to this increase in overthinking errors, we measure the token-level KL divergence between quantized and full-precision output distributions. Positions with high KL divergence correlate strongly with high next-token entropy, and at these positions quantized models disproportionately sample overthinking markers such as "wait", "but", and "alternatively". We show that simply introducing a training-free logit penalty on a curated set of overthinking markers can reduce CoT length by 12--23% while preserving or improving accuracy across 5 models (1.5B-32B parameters), 3 quantization methods, and 5 benchmarks, yielding a favorable Pareto frontier of accuracy against reasoning cost compared to penalizing other token sets. Overthinking errors produced by quantized models are particularly reduced by up to 58%.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models have significantly improved chain-of-thought (CoT) capabilities via reinforcement learning (RL). However, generated reasoning chains frequently suffer from structural redundancy (i.e., \emph{overthinking}), incurring high computational overhead without improving answer correctness. Existing mitigation strategies typically rely on token-uniform length penalties, which provide coarse, segment-agnostic pressure toward shorter outputs and can inadvertently suppress useful reasoning alongside redundancy. To address this, we demonstrate that inefficiency concentrates in high-probability segments with low marginal utility. We derive a theoretical characterization of segment suboptimality under the correctness-length trade-off objective and propose \textsc{SLAT} (Segment-Level Adaptive Trimming), an RL framework that selectively suppresses redundant segments based on this criterion. Empirical results on standard benchmarks indicate that \textsc{SLAT} establishes a superior accuracy-efficiency Pareto frontier, reducing reasoning length by $50\%$ relative to uncompressed baselines while maintaining competitive accuracy. Overall, our results suggest that theoretically grounded, segment-aware trimming is a promising direction for efficient CoT reasoning in large language models.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is an effective recipe for training reasoning models with verifier-based outcome rewards, but its supervision is sparse: when all sampled trajectories for a prompt receive the same verifier reward, the group-relative advantage collapses to zero and learning stalls. Outcome-only rewards also provide no step-level credit assignment, limiting exploration and making it harder to learn robust reasoning. We present VeriGate (Verifier-Gated Step-Level GRPO), a verifier-gated extension of GRPO that addresses these limitations with three design choices. First, VeriGate keeps the verifier in charge whenever verifier rewards induce a meaningful preference among sampled trajectories, and uses process supervision only when verifier rewards are degenerate. Second, instead of collapsing Process Reward Model (PRM) step scores into a single trajectory reward, VeriGate converts them into future-cumulated rewards to assign continuation-aware credit. Third, VeriGate transforms these rewards into group-normalized token-level advantages, restoring informative gradients and fine-grained credit assignment while remaining less susceptible to reward hacking than methods that optimize aggregated PRM scores. Empirically, training on MATH with 1.5B and 7B Qwen2.5-Instruct models and evaluating on six reasoning benchmarks, VeriGate improves average accuracy by about 20% and 12% for 1.5B and 7B models respectively, substantially reduces zero-gradient failures, decreases reward-hacking behavior, and improves reasoning quality relative to outcome-only GRPO and PRM-as-outcome baselines.

Frontier reasoning models are produced by posttraining base language models with reinforcement learning. Recent work has challenged this by showing that sampling from a sharpened version of the base model's distribution, a so-called power distribution, elicits comparable reasoning without additional training, curated datasets, or verifiers. However, making this method practical requires efficiently sampling from the power distribution. A sampler needs to "mix" to the power distribution, which necessitates moving between modes of the target distribution; intuitively, e.g., trying different reasoning strategies. The samplers proposed in prior works repeatedly select a "cut" position in the current reasoning trace uniformly at random and resample the suffix from that position onward. However, reasoning traces typically contain a few consequential decisions (e.g., the choice of proof strategy or algorithm), and we observe that a uniformly chosen cut tends to rewrite local details rather than revisit decision points. We introduce an algorithm (Entropy-Cut Metropolis-Hastings) that uses the base model's next-token entropy as a proxy to identify key decision points and resample from those positions. We empirically verify that entropy jumps are a useful proxy for decision points and, in a stylized model of reasoning, prove that our method's mixing time scales with the number of decisions in a trace rather than with the number of tokens, which can be much larger. Across MATH500, HumanEval, GPQA Diamond, and AIME26, our method consistently improves over baselines and RL-trained models.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on table reasoning tasks but incur substantial inference cost due to long reasoning traces. Stepwise model routing mitigates this issue by dynamically assigning reasoning steps to smaller or larger models. However, stepwise model routing for table reasoning remains underexplored. Through empirical analysis, we find that reasoning steps involving tables contain two types of tokens with distinct uncertainty distributions: table tokens grounded in table structure, such as cell values and headers, and text tokens representing surrounding natural-language reasoning. The uncertainty of both token types is correlated with the risk that the model makes an error in the next reasoning step. However, existing methods fail to model them separately, leading to suboptimal routing decisions. To address this, we propose EcoTab, a table-aware stepwise routing framework for efficient table reasoning. At each reasoning step, EcoTab separately estimates the uncertainties of table tokens and text tokens, maps them to next-step failure risks for the small model, and combines the two risks for routing. Experiments on multiple table reasoning benchmarks show that EcoTab consistently outperforms strong baselines and achieves a better balance between accuracy and efficiency.

Stepwise model routing improves the efficiency of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) by assigning each reasoning step to a suitable model. Recent methods formulate routing as a sequential decision process and train the router with reinforcement learning. However, although they model routing as a process, they still supervise the router with outcome rewards. Such rewards only reflect final answer correctness and fail to evaluate intermediate routing decisions, which can weaken performance and generalization. To address this gap, we propose RoRo, a rubric-guided process reward framework for stepwise model routing. RoRo first collects diverse routing trajectories and constructs preference pairs based on outcome, cost, and process quality. It then trains a Rubricor to generate a query-specific evaluation rubric and a Judge to score routing trajectories under this rubric through alternating optimization. The resulting process rewards are combined with outcome rewards to optimize the routing policy via GRPO. Experiments on five reasoning benchmarks under both same-family and cross-family settings show that RoRo consistently outperforms strong baselines and achieves better accuracy and cost trade-offs.

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

Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a $2\times 2$ latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rate metrics and single-turn faithfulness probes both miss. Across three datasets (MT-Consistency, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K), the latent-correct rate at the behavioral flip clusters near 50% in think mode and collapses to 11-15% under no_think -- paired, within-model causal evidence that reasoning creates the gap. Across models the effect tracks the reasoning channel (high in Qwen3-32B and GPT-OSS-20B, low in inline-CoT Gemma-4-31B-it). An independent GPT-4o judge corroborates $86\%$ of UC labels; a token-level probe shows the answer-slot argmax is correct in $84\%$ of UC cells; and a naive trace-anchored defense backfires. We release all trajectories, traces, and judge labels.

Context compression aims to shorten long context inputs with minimal information loss for LLM inference acceleration. While existing methods have shown promise, they typically rely on complex compression modules or compression-specific training, leaving the intrinsic capabilities of LLMs underexplored. In contrast, this work reveals that a thinking model itself can naturally compress long contexts by organizing task-relevant information. We thus derive Thinking as Compression (TaC), a new compression paradigm that treats thinking itself as compressed context. Without relying on specific dedicated compressor, TaC directly prompts the thinking model to generate thinking traces as the shortened context, already outperforming most representative compression methods. Further, given that raw thinking output may struggle with budget control and shortcut behaviors, we introduce Thinking as Compression Constrained (TaC-C), leveraging a simple reward-driven optimization framework to elicit intrinsic thinking as compact and controllable compressed context. Experiments across four long-context QA benchmarks demonstrate that TaC-C consistently outperforms existing baselines. At 4x and 8x compression ratios, it surpasses the strongest competitor by 17.4% and 23.4% in average F1, and by 15.7% and 21.7% in average Exact Match Score (EM), respectively.