Large Reasoning Models

Distillation via sampling reasoning traces exposes closed-source frontier models to adversarial third parties who can bypass their guardrails and misappropriate their capabilities. Antidistillation methods aim to address this by poisoning reasoning traces to hinder student model learning while preserving teacher performance. However, current methods overlook detectability, both semantic and syntactic, which erodes trust in the teacher's outputs and signals the defense's presence to adversaries. We address this gap by formulating antidistillation as a Stackelberg game whose constraint set explicitly encodes detectability, and show that perturbing sparingly offers an effective, less detectable alternative to poisoning the full trace. Drawing on mechanistic interpretability, we identify thought anchors, sentences with disproportionate counterfactual influence on model outputs, as a principled sparse target: critical to reasoning yet minimally detectable. We instantiate this in TraceGuard, a training-free, black-box proof-of-concept that locates thought anchors via branching-token detection and poisons them to degrade student distillation while preserving trace coherence.

STEM education researchers are often interested in identifying moments of students' mechanistic reasoning for deeper analysis, but have limited capacity to search through many team conversation transcripts to find segments with a high concentration of such reasoning. We offer a solution in the form of an interpretable machine learning model that outputs time-varying probabilities that individual students are engaging in acts of mechanistic reasoning, leveraging evidence from their own utterances as well as contributions from the rest of the group. Using the toolkit of intentionally-designed probabilistic models, we introduce a specific inductive bias that steers the probabilistic dynamics toward desired, domain-aligned behavior. Experiments compare trained models with and without the inductive bias components, investigating whether their presence improves the desired model behavior on transcripts involving never-before-seen students and a novel discussion context. Our results show that the inductive bias improves generalization -- supporting the claim that interpretability is built into the model for this task rather than imposed post hoc. We conclude with practical recommendations for STEM education researchers seeking to adopt the tool and for ML researchers aiming to extend the model's design. Overall, we hope this work encourages the development of mechanistically interpretable models that are understandable and controllable for both end users and model designers in STEM education research.

The field of Language Reasoning Models (LRMs) has been very active over the past few years with advances in training and inference techniques enabling LRMs to reason longer, and more accurately. However, a growing body of studies show that LRMs are still inefficient, over-generating verification and reflection steps. Additionally, the high-level role of each reasoning step and how different step types contribute to the generation of correct answers, is largely underexplored. To address this challenge, we introduce TRACES (Tagging of the Reasoning steps enabling Adaptive Cost-Efficient early-Stopping), a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps in real-time, and enable adaptive, cost-efficient early stopping of large-language-model inferences. Building on this framework we monitor reasoning behaviors during inferences, and we find that LRMs tend to shift their reasoning behavior after reaching a correct answer. We demonstrate that the monitoring of the specific type of steps can produce effective interpretable early stopping criteria. We evaluate the TRACES framework on three mathematical reasoning benchmarks, namely, MATH500, GSM8K, AIME and two knowledge and reasoning benchmarks, MMLU and GPQA respectively. We achieve 20 to 50% token reduction while maintaining comparable accuracy to standard generation.

We study whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform feature model analysis operations (AOs) directly on semi-formal textual blueprints, i.e., concise constrained-language descriptions of feature hierarchies and constraints, enabling early validation in Software Product Line scoping. Using 12 state-of-the-art LLMs and 16 standard AOs, we compare their outputs against the solver-based oracle FLAMA. Results show that reasoning-optimized models (e.g., Grok 4 Fast Reasoning, Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieve 88-89% average accuracy across all evaluated blueprints and operations, approaching solver correctness. We identify systematic errors in structural parsing and constraint reasoning, and highlight accuracy-cost trade-offs that inform model selection. These findings position LLMs as lightweight assistants for early variability validation.

Test-time training (TTT) adapts model parameters on unlabeled test instances during inference time, which continuously extends capabilities beyond the reach of offline training. Despite initial gains, existing TTT methods for LRMs plateau quickly and do not benefit from additional test-time compute. Without external calibration, the self-generated reward signal increasingly drifts as the policy model evolves, leading to both performance plateaus and diversity collapse. We propose TEMPO, a TTT framework that interleaves policy refinement on unlabeled questions with periodic critic recalibration on a labeled dataset. By formalizing this alternating procedure through the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm, we reveal that prior methods can be interpreted as incomplete variants that omit the crucial recalibration step. Reintroducing this step tightens the evidence lower bound (ELBO) and enables sustained improvement. Across diverse model families (Qwen3 and OLMO3) and reasoning tasks, TEMPO improves OLMO3-7B on AIME 2024 from 33.0% to 51.1% and Qwen3-14B from 42.3% to 65.8%, while maintaining high diversity.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and reasoning-tuned models such as DeepSeek-R1 are commonly assumed to reduce shallow heuristic biases by thinking carefully. We test this on position bias in multiple-choice QA and find a different story: within any reasoning-capable model, per-question position bias scales with the length of the reasoning trajectory. Across thirteen reasoning-mode configurations (two R1-distilled 7-8B models, two base models prompted with CoT, and DeepSeek-R1 at 671B) on MMLU, ARC-Challenge, and GPQA, twelve show a positive partial correlation between trajectory length and Position Bias Score (PBS) after controlling for accuracy, ranging from 0.11 to 0.41 (all p < 0.05). All twelve open-weight reasoning-mode configurations show monotonically increasing PBS across length quartiles. A truncation intervention provides causal evidence: continuations resumed from later points in the trajectory are increasingly likely to shift toward position-preferred options (16% to 32% for R1-Qwen-7B across absolute-position buckets). At 671B, aggregate PBS collapses to 0.019, but the length effect still manifests in the longest quartile (PBS = 0.071), suggesting that accuracy gates the expression of length-driven bias rather than eliminating the underlying mechanism. We additionally find that direct-answer position bias is a distinct phenomenon with a different footprint (strong in Llama-Instruct-direct, weak in Qwen-Instruct-direct, and uncorrelated with trajectory length): CoT reasoning replaces this baseline bias with length-accumulated bias. Our results argue that reasoning-capable models should not be treated as order-robust by default in MCQ evaluation pipelines, and offer a diagnostic toolkit (PBS, commitment change point, effective switching, truncation probes) for auditing position bias in reasoning models.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex reasoning tasks but often generate harmful responses to malicious user queries. This paper investigates the underlying cause of these safety risks and shows that the issue lies in the reasoning structure itself. Based on this insight, we claim that effective safety alignment can be achieved by altering the reasoning structure. We propose AltTrain, a simple yet effective post training method that explicitly alters the reasoning structure of LRMs. AltTrain is both practical and generalizable, requiring no complex reinforcement learning (RL) training or reward design, only supervised finetuning (SFT) with a lightweight 1K training examples. Experiments across LRM backbones and model sizes demonstrate strong safety alignment, along with robust generalization across reasoning, QA, summarization, and multilingual setting.

Despite the growing application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to theoretical physics, there is little academic exploration into how domain-specific physics reasoning ability develops while training these models. To investigate this, we perform the first academic fine-tuning study of small (7B-parameter) reasoning models dedicated specifically to theoretical physics. Because open-source verifiable training data required to train such capabilities is scarce, we developed a robust data generation pipeline that can both create synthetic problems and make existing human-authored problems suitable for model training. Selecting Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as our primary domain, we generated over 2,500 synthetic problems alongside a curated collection of human-adapted problems sourced from arXiv and standard pedagogical resources. We conduct both Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) experiments, benchmarking performance gains as well as generalization to other physics domains. We perform an extensive analysis of model chains-of-though before and after fine-tuning, to understand how reasoning errors evolve during RL and SFT. Finally, we publicly release our data pipeline, verifiable QFT training data, and $\sim$200M tokens of QFT reasoning traces.

Language models often solve complex tasks by generating long reasoning chains, consisting of many steps with varying importance. While some steps are crucial for generating the final answer, others are removable. Determining which steps matter most, and why, remains an open question central to understanding how models process reasoning. We investigate if this question is best approached through model internals or through tokens of the reasoning chain itself. We find that model activations contain more information than tokens for identifying important reasoning steps. Crucially, by training probes on model activations to predict importance, we show that models encode an internal representation of step importance, even prior to the generation of subsequent steps. The internal representations of importance in different models yield high agreement on which steps are important. The representation is distributed across layers, and does not correlate with surface-level features, such as a step's relative position or its length. Our findings suggest that analyzing activations can reveal aspects of reasoning that surface-level approaches fundamentally miss, indicating that reasoning analyses should look into model internals.

Future spacecraft operations require autonomy that can interpret high-level mission intent while preserving safety. However, existing trajectory optimization still relies heavily on expert-crafted formulations and does not support intent-conditioned decision-making. This paper proposes an intent-aligned spacecraft guidance framework that links high-level reasoning and safe trajectory optimization through explicit intermediate abstractions, based on behavior sequences and waypoint constraints. A foundation model first predicts an intent-aligned behavior plan, a waypoint generation model then converts it into waypoint constraints, and the safe trajectory is computed via optimization. This decomposition enables scalable supervision without sacrificing safety. Numerical experiments in close-proximity operation scenarios demonstrate that the proposed pipeline achieves over 90% SCP convergence and yields a $1.5\times$ higher rate of generating trajectories that satisfy the top intent-prioritized performance criteria than heuristic decision-making. These results support the use of intermediate behavior abstraction as a practical interface between foundation-model reasoning and safety-critical onboard spacecraft autonomy.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising approach to improve the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Among RLVR algorithms, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and its variants have demonstrated strong performance and high training efficiency. However, GRPO-style objectives exhibit two issues on high accuracy prompts including mastered prompts (rollout accuracy =1) and majority-correct prompts (rollout accuracy in (0.5,1)). For mastered prompts, group-relative advantages vanish, yielding no training signal and unconstrained policy drift that can cause forgetting. For majority-correct prompts, the induced query weight shrinks as accuracy increases, weakening consolidation from partial correctness to mastery. To alleviate this, we propose Mastery-Consolidated Policy Optimization (MCPO), which introduces (i) a hinge-KL regularizer applied exclusively to mastered prompts to bound harmful policy drift between successive gradient steps, and (ii) a weighting mechanism that prioritizes majority-correct prompts to better allocate optimization effort. Extensive experiments across three mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that MCPO consistently improves pass@1 performance. Counter-intuitively, rather than restricting exploration, MCPO boosts pass@k metrics, indicating that mastery consolidation further catalyzes solution diversity.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that test-time scaling can substantially improve model performance on complex tasks, particularly in the coding domain. Under this paradigm, models use a larger token budget during inference to generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. However, current evaluations primarily rely on competitive programming benchmarks, which may not capture the full range of reasoning abilities. In this work, we perform a systematic study of frontier reasoning models to understand their performance on real-world coding benchmarks. To gain more insights into the performance of such models, we devise a programmatic way to {\em automatically generate} coding tasks of arbitrary difficulty and structure from existing benchmarks. Using this framework, our analysis reveals that the structure of a reasoning trace, not just its contents, is a strong predictor of correctness. Motivated by this, we propose structured thought-trees as means to represent reasoning traces. To illustrate their use, we train a lightweight classifier on features extracted from thought-trees to predict trace correctness, and demonstrate that flagging and retrying structurally anomalous traces based on the extracted features yields consistent gains at lower complexity levels.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) has transformed text based question answering, yet its extension to visual domains remains hindered by fundamental challenges: bridging the modality gap between image queries and text heavy knowledge bases, constructing semantically meaningful visual knowledge bases, performing multihop reasoning over retrieved images, and verifying that generated answers are faithfully grounded in visual evidence. We present KIRA (Knowledge Intensive Image Retrieval and Reasoning Architecture), a unified five stage framework that addresses ten core problems in visual RAG for specialized domains. KIRA introduces: (1) hierarchical semantic chunking with DINO based region detection for multi granularity knowledge base construction, (2) domain adaptive contrastive encoders with fewshot adaptation for rare visual concepts, (3) dualpath crossmodal retrieval with chainOfThought query expansion, (4) chainOfRetrieval for multihop visual reasoning with temporal and multiview support, and (5) evidence conditioned grounded generation with posthoc hallucination verification. We also propose DOMAINVQAR, a benchmark suite that evaluates visual RAG along three axes (retrieval precision, reasoning faithfulness, and domain correctness) going beyond standard recall metrics. Experiments across four specialized domains (medical Xray, circuit diagrams, satellite imagery, and histopathology) with a progressive six variant ablation demonstrate that KIRA achieves 0.97 retrieval precision, 1.0 grounding scores, and 0.707 domain correctness averaged across domains, while the ablation reveals actionable insights about when each component helps and when components introduce precision diversity tradeoffs that must be managed. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Large reasoning models that use long chain-of-thought excel at problem-solving yet waste compute on redundant checks. Curbing this overthinking is hard: training-time length penalties can cripple ability, while inference-time early-exit adds system overhead. To bridge this gap, we propose Step-GRPO, a novel post-training framework that internalizes dynamic early-exit capabilities directly into the model. Step-GRPO shifts the optimization objective from raw tokens to semantic steps by utilizing linguistic markers to structure reasoning. We introduce a Dynamic Truncated Rollout mechanism that exposes the model to concise high-confidence trajectories during exploration, synergized with a Step-Aware Relative Reward that dynamically penalizes redundancy based on group-level baselines. Extensive experiments across three model sizes on diverse benchmarks demonstrate that Step-GRPO achieves a superior accuracy-efficiency trade-off. On Qwen3-8B, our method reduces token consumption by 32.0% compared to the vanilla model while avoiding the accuracy degradation observed in traditional length-penalty methods.

Parallel reasoning enhances Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) but incurs prohibitive costs due to futile paths caused by early errors. To mitigate this, path pruning at the prefix level is essential, yet existing research remains fragmented without a standardized framework. In this work, we propose the first systematic taxonomy of path pruning, categorizing methods by their signal source (internal vs. external) and learnability (learnable vs. non-learnable). This classification reveals the unexplored potential of learnable internal methods, motivating our proposal of STOP (Super TOken for Pruning). Extensive evaluations across LRMs ranging from 1.5B to 20B parameters demonstrate that STOP achieves superior effectiveness and efficiency compared to existing baselines. Furthermore, we rigorously validate the scalability of STOP under varying compute budgets - for instance, boosting GPT-OSS-20B accuracy on AIME25 from 84% to nearly 90% under fixed compute budgets. Finally, we distill our findings into formalized empirical guidelines to facilitate optimal real-world deployment. Code, data and models are available at https://bijiaxihh.github.io/STOP

Machine unlearning has gained increasing attention in recent years, as a promising technique to selectively remove unwanted privacy or copyrighted information from Large Language Models that are trained on a massive scale of human data. However, the emergence of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), which emphasize long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to address complex questions, presents a dilemma to unlearning: existing methods either struggle to completely eliminate undesired knowledge from the CoT traces or degrade the reasoning performances due to the interference with the reasoning process. To this end, we introduce Counterfactual Unlearning through iterative Preference Optimization (CiPO), a novel framework that redefines unlearning as the targeted intervention of the CoT reasoning in LRMs. More specifically, given a desired unlearning target answer, CiPO instructs LRMs to generate a logically valid counterfactual reasoning trace for preference tuning. As the LRM adjusts to the counterfactual trace, CiPO iteratively updates the preference learning data to increase the discrepancy from the original model. This iterative loop ensures both desirable unlearning and smooth optimization, effectively mitigating the dilemma. Experiments on challenging benchmarks demonstrate that CiPO excels at unlearning, completely removing knowledge from both the intermediate CoT steps and the final answer, while preserving the reasoning abilities of LRMs.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating step-by-step reasoning chains alongside final answers, enabling their deployment in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and education. While prior jailbreak attack studies have focused on the safety of final answers, little attention has been given to the safety of the reasoning process. In this work, we identify a novel problem that injects harmful content into the reasoning steps while preserving unchanged answers. This type of attack presents two key challenges: 1) manipulating the input instructions may inadvertently alter the LRM's final answer, and 2) the diversity of input questions makes it difficult to consistently bypass the LRM's safety alignment mechanisms and embed harmful content into its reasoning process. To address these challenges, we propose the Psychology-based Reasoning-targeted Jailbreak Attack (PRJA) Framework, which integrates a Semantic-based Trigger Selection module and a Psychology-based Instruction Generation module. Specifically, the proposed PRJA automatically selects manipulative reasoning triggers via semantic analysis and leverages psychological theories of obedience to authority and moral disengagement to generate adaptive instructions for enhancing the LRM's compliance with harmful content generation. Extensive experiments on five question-answering datasets demonstrate that PRJA achieves an average attack success rate of 83.6% against several commercial LRMs, including DeepSeek R1, Qwen2.5-Max, and OpenAI o4-mini.

Recent developments in reasoning capabilities have enabled large language models to solve increasingly complex mathematical, symbolic, and logical tasks. Interestingly, while reasoning models are often trained to generate monolingual text, these models have also been observed to code-switch (i.e., mix languages). Prior works have either viewed code-switching as an undesirable error, attempted to control code-switching through modifications to input prompts or the output decoding process, or focus on narrow subsets of languages, domains, tasks, and models. We address these gaps by introducing the first linguistically and behaviorally motivated fine-tuning framework for identifying beneficial code-switched reasoning behaviors in large language models and teaching these models to code-switch more effectively for reasoning. First, we create and systematically analyze a dataset of reasoning traces from diverse models, languages, tasks, and domains to understand the types of code-switching behaviors found in existing reasoning models. Then, we develop fine-tuning interventions that teach reasoning models to code-switch based on our observations of helpful behaviors in existing models. We find that our framework can significantly increase beneficial code-switched reasoning behaviors in a data-efficient manner. Interestingly, we also find that code-switching behaviors in reasoning models can be modified by fine-tuning for tasks that do not directly demonstrate code-switching in reasoning (e.g., machine translation). Our work suggests that data-efficient interventions can instill helpful forms of code-switching behavior in reasoning models.

Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex tasks through extended chains of thought but suffer from high inference latency due to autoregressive reasoning. Recent work explores using Small Reasoning Models (SRMs) to accelerate LRM inference. In this paper, we systematically characterize the capability boundaries of SRMs and identify three common types of reasoning risks: (1) path divergence, where SRMs lack the strategic ability to construct an initial plan, causing reasoning to deviate from the most probable path; (2) cognitive overload, where SRMs fail to solve particularly difficult steps; and (3) recovery inability, where SRMs lack robust self-reflection and error correction mechanisms. To address these challenges, we propose TrigReason, a trigger-based collaborative reasoning framework that replaces continuous polling with selective intervention. TrigReason delegates most reasoning to the SRM and activates LRM intervention only when necessary-during initial strategic planning (strategic priming trigger), upon detecting extraordinary overconfidence (cognitive offload trigger), or when reasoning falls into unproductive loops (intervention request trigger). The evaluation results on AIME24, AIME25, and GPQA-D indicate that TrigReason matches the accuracy of full LRMs and SpecReason, while offloading 1.70x - 4.79x more reasoning steps to SRMs. Under edge-cloud conditions, TrigReason reduces latency by 43.9% and API cost by 73.3%. Our code is available at \href{https://github.com/QQQ-yi/TrigReason}{https://github.com/QQQ-yi/TrigReason}

Building general-purpose reasoning models using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) across diverse domains has been widely adopted by frontier open-weight models. However, their training recipes and domain mixtures are often not disclosed. Joint optimization across domains poses significant challenges: domains vary widely in rollout length, problem difficulty, and sample efficiency. Further, models with long chain-of-thought traces increase inference cost and latency, making efficiency critical for practical deployment. We present Apriel-Reasoner, trained with a reproducible multi-domain RL post-training recipe on Apriel-Base, a 15B-parameter open-weight LLM, across five domains using public datasets: mathematics, code generation, instruction following, logical puzzles, and function calling. We introduce adaptive domain sampling that preserves target completed-rollout ratios despite heterogeneous rollout dynamics, and a difficulty-aware length penalty that, at no additional training overhead, encourages longer reasoning for difficult problems and shorter traces for easy ones. Trained with a strict 16K-token output budget, Apriel-Reasoner remains effective at a 32K output budget and improves over Apriel-Base on AIME 2025, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, and LiveCodeBench while producing 30-50% shorter reasoning traces. Among the evaluated open-weight models of similar scale, it improves the accuracy-token tradeoff using a fully public-data recipe.

Artificial intelligence in molecular science must move beyond pattern recognition toward chemically valid and interpretable reasoning. We present a task-adaptive large reasoning model that integrates chemical knowledge through a synergistic multispecialist architecture, chain-of-thought supervision, and molecule-informed reinforcement learning. Task-conditioned routing coordinates prediction and inference specialists across 10 molecular tasks spanning molecular description and generation, nomenclature translation, property prediction, and reaction prediction. The model outperforms more than 20 general-purpose and molecular large language models, improves aggregate performance over the base model by 50.3%, and surpasses the leading molecular multitask baseline on most tasks. Analyses of specialist representations and reasoning pathways reveal task-specific adaptation while retaining interpretable chemical inference. A case study further demonstrates an integrated workflow for central nervous system candidate generation, property screening, molecular interpretation, and retrosynthetic planning. These results demonstrate a versatile multi-task framework for knowledge-guided molecular reasoning and design, with the potential to serve as a core task engine for future molecular science agents.

Reasoning models often generate far more tokens than a task requires, which raises inference cost and can compound errors. We introduce CRISP (Compressed Reasoning via Iterative Self-Policy Distillation), an on-policy self-distillation method that teaches a model to reason more concisely by distilling its own concise behavior back into itself. The method uses a single idea: condition the same model on a "be concise" instruction to obtain teacher logits, then minimize the per-token reverse KL divergence between the student and this teacher on the student's own rollouts. It requires no ground-truth answers, no token budgets, and no difficulty estimators. The reverse-KL objective is naturally difficulty-adaptive: it compresses easy problems aggressively while preserving the reasoning steps that hard problems require. On Qwen3-14B, CRISP cuts reasoning length by up to 56% on MATH-500 and 38% on the harder AIME 2024, while improving MATH-500 accuracy by up to 3.3 points over the base model and holding AIME 2024 accuracy within about one point. This behavior generalizes across model sizes and families: Qwen3-8B shows the same compression with accuracy preserved, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B improves accuracy on all five benchmarks while shortening its responses. General capabilities are preserved across all three models. Code is available at https://github.com/HJSang/OPSD_Reasoning_Compression.

Time series reasoning tasks often start with a natural language question and require targeted analysis of a time series. Evidence may span the full series or appear in a few short intervals, so the model must decide what to inspect. Most existing approaches encode the entire time series into a fixed representation before inference, regardless of whether or not the entire sequence is relevant. We introduce ARTIST, which formulates time-series reasoning as a sequential decision problem. ARTIST interleaves reasoning with adaptive temporal segment selection. It adopts a controller-reasoner architecture and uses reinforcement learning to train the controller role to select informative segments and the reasoner role to generate segment-conditioned reasoning traces and final answers. During inference, the model actively acquires task-relevant information instead of relying on a static summary of the full sequence. We use a novel hierarchical policy optimization approach for post-training that allows the model to excel in both segment selection and question-answering behavior. We evaluate ARTIST on six time-series reasoning benchmarks and compare it with large language models, vision-language models, and prior time-series reasoning systems. ARTIST improves average accuracy by 6.46 absolute percentage points over the strongest baseline. The largest gains appear on rare event localization and multi-segment reasoning tasks. Supervised fine-tuning improves performance, and reinforcement learning provides additional gains by optimizing question-adaptive segment selection. These results show that selective data use drives effective time-series reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.

The standard post-training recipe for large reasoning models, supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning (SFT-then-RL), may limit the benefits of the RL stage: while SFT imitates expert demonstrations, it often causes overconfidence and reduces generation diversity, leaving RL with a narrowed solution space to explore. Adding entropy regularization during SFT is not a cure-all; it tends to flatten token distributions toward uniformity, increasing entropy without improving meaningful exploration capability. In this paper, we propose CurioSFT, an entropy-preserving SFT method designed to enhance exploration capabilities through intrinsic curiosity. It consists of (a) Self-Exploratory Distillation, which distills the model toward a self-generated, temperature-scaled teacher to encourage exploration within its capability; and (b) Entropy-Guided Temperature Selection, which adaptively adjusts distillation strength to mitigate knowledge forgetting by amplifying exploration at reasoning tokens while stabilizing factual tokens. Extensive experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks demonstrate that, in SFT stage, CurioSFT outperforms the vanilla SFT by 2.5 points on in-distribution tasks and 2.9 points on out-of-distribution tasks. We also verify that exploration capabilities preserved during SFT successfully translate into concrete gains in RL stage, yielding an average improvement of 5.0 points.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) typically solve reasoning-intensive tasks by generating long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, leading to substantial inference overhead. We identify a reproducible inference-time phenomenon, termed Self-Compression: when multiple independent and answerable questions are presented within a single prompt, the model spontaneously produces shorter reasoning traces for each question. This phenomenon arises from multi-question contextual pressure during generation and consistently manifests across models and benchmarks. Building on this observation, we propose ConPress (Learning from Contextual Pressure), a lightweight self-supervised fine-tuning approach. ConPress constructs multi-question prompts to induce self-compression, samples the resulting model outputs, and parses and filters per-question traces to obtain concise yet correct reasoning trajectories. These trajectories are directly used for supervised fine-tuning, internalizing compressed reasoning behavior in single-question settings without external teachers, manual pruning, or reinforcement learning. With only 8k fine-tuning examples, ConPress reduces reasoning token usage by 59% on MATH500 and 33% on AIME25, while maintaining competitive accuracy.

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

Distilling the capabilities from a large reasoning model (LRM) to a smaller student model often involves training on substantial amounts of reasoning data. However, knowledge distillation (KD) over lengthy sequences with prompt (P), chain-of-thought (CoT), and answer (A) sections makes the process computationally expensive. In this work, we investigate how the allocation of supervision across different sections (P, CoT, A) affects student performance. Our analysis shows that selective KD over only the CoT tokens can be effective when the prompt and answer information is encompassed by it. Building on this insight, we establish a truncation protocol to quantify computation-quality tradeoffs as a function of sequence length. We observe that beyond a specific length, longer training sequences provide marginal returns for downstream performance but require substantially higher memory and FLOPs. To this end, training on only the first $50\%$ of tokens of every training sequence can retain, on average, $\approx91\%$ of full-sequence performance on math benchmarks while reducing training time, memory usage, and FLOPs by about $50\%$ each. Codes are available at https://github.com/weiruichen01/distilling-the-essence.

The field of Language Reasoning Models (LRMs) has been very active over the past few years with advances in training and inference techniques enabling LRMs to reason longer, and more accurately. However, a growing body of studies show that LRMs are still inefficient, over-generating verification and reflection steps. To address this challenge, we introduce the Step-Tagging framework, a lightweight sentence-classifier enabling real-time annotation of the type of reasoning steps that an LRM is generating. To monitor reasoning behaviors, we introduced ReasonType: a novel taxonomy of reasoning steps. Building on this framework, we demonstrated that online monitoring of the count of specific steps can produce effective interpretable early stopping criteria of LRM inferences. We evaluate the Step-tagging framework on three open-source reasoning models across standard benchmark datasets: MATH500, GSM8K, AIME and non-mathematical tasks (GPQA and MMLU-Pro). We achieve 20 to 50% token reduction while maintaining comparable accuracy to standard generation, with largest gains observed on more computation-heavy tasks. This work offers a novel way to increase control over the generation of LRMs, and a new tool to study behaviors of LRMs.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often consume excessive tokens, inflating computational cost and latency. More broadly, in goal reaching sequential decision problems we often want to reach the goal quickly, and LRM reasoning can be viewed through this lens. We challenge the assumption that longer responses improve accuracy. By penalizing reasoning tokens using a discounted reinforcement learning setup (interpretable as a small token cost) and analyzing Blackwell optimality in restricted policy classes, we encourage concise yet accurate reasoning, analogous to preferring shorter successful trajectories in a stochastic shortest path problem. Experiments confirm our theoretical results that this approach shortens chains of thought while preserving accuracy.

We propose RT (Refine Thought), a method that can enhance the semantic reasoning ability of text embedding models. The method obtains the final semantic representation by running multiple forward passes of the text embedding model. Experiments show that RT achieves significant improvements on semantic reasoning tasks in BRIGHT and the person-job matching benchmark PJBenchmark, while maintaining consistent performance on general-purpose semantic understanding tasks such as C-MTEB. Our results indicate that RT is effective because it further activates the semantic reasoning ability learned during pretraining by decoder-only text embedding models (e.g., Qwen3-Embedding-8B). RT can be seen as a test-time inference method.

What do thinking language models learn during training that their base models lack? We first present an unsupervised method that discovers a model's reasoning behaviors by training small Sparse Autoencoders on sentence-level activations of reasoning traces, yielding interpretable reasoning taxonomies. Building on this, we introduce constructive model diffing, which aims to reconstruct the base-to-fine-tuned difference from interpretable components: reasoning mechanisms (category vectors that can induce a reasoning behavior in the base model) and reasoning heuristics (a classifier determining when a mechanism should fire). Across nine base/thinking pairs (four RL-trained, four SFT-distilled, one mixed), two independent findings agree: category vectors in the base model converge to far lower loss for taxonomies derived from purely RL-trained models, and hybrid models recover roughly 76% of the RL base-to-thinking gap but only 11% of the SFT gap. This indicates RL primarily teaches heuristics for orchestrating pre-existing base mechanisms, whereas SFT-distillation installs new ones, offering a new lens on what training paradigms teach, with implications for efficient reasoning-model development.

Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's operational capability boundary, leading to long but unproductive reasoning. In this paper, we study whether LRMs expose early signals predictive of such cases, and whether these signals can be used to mitigate unproductive reasoning. In black-box settings, we find that reasoning expressions contain failure-predictive signals. In white-box settings, we show that the hidden states of the last input token contain information that is predictive of whether a question will not be solved correctly under our evaluation setup. Building on these observations, we propose two test-time monitoring strategies: reasoning expression monitoring and hidden states monitoring, that reduce token usage by 62.7-93.6%, substantially improving efficiency and reliability while largely preserving accuracy.

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

Given the prohibitive cost of pre-training large language models, it is essential to leverage smaller proxy models to optimize datasets before scaling up. However, this approach becomes challenging for reasoning capabilities, which exhibit emergent behavior that only appear reliably at larger model sizes, often exceeding 7B parameters. To address this, we introduce rBridge, showing that small proxies ($\leq$1B) can effectively predict large-model reasoning by aligning more closely with (1) the pre-training objective and (2) the target task. rBridge achieves this by weighting negative log-likelihood with task alignment, using reasoning traces from frontier models as gold labels. In our experiments, rBridge (i) reduces dataset ranking costs by over 100x relative to the best baseline, (ii) achieves the strongest correlation across six reasoning benchmarks at 1B to 32B scale, and (iii) zero-shot transfers predictive relationships across pre-training datasets at 1B to 7B scale. These findings indicate that rBridge offers a practical path for exploring reasoning-oriented pre-training at lower cost.

Best-of-n sampling improves the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) by generating multiple candidate solutions and selecting the one with the highest reward. The key challenge for reasoning tasks is designing a scoring function that can identify correct reasoning chains without access to ground-truth answers. We propose Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking (PiCSAR): a simple, training-free method that scores each candidate generation using the joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer. The joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer naturally decomposes into reasoning confidence and answer confidence. PiCSAR achieves substantial gains across diverse benchmarks (+10.18 on MATH500, +9.81 on AIME2025), outperforming baselines with at least 2x fewer samples in 16 out of 20 comparisons. Our analysis reveals that correct reasoning chains exhibit significantly higher reasoning and answer confidence, justifying the effectiveness of PiCSAR.

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.

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 reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process. We introduce ReasoningFlow, a framework that captures the discourse structures of LRM reasoning traces into fine-grained directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We develop and validate our annotation schema through careful manual annotation of 31 traces (2.1k steps), achieving high inter-annotator agreement, then scale to automatic annotation of 1,260 traces (247.7k steps) spanning three tasks (math, science, argumentation) and five models (Qwen2.5-32B-Inst, QwQ-32B, DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-oss-120B). By analyzing ReasoningFlow graphs, we find: (1) LRMs exhibit structurally similar traces, despite being trained from different base models and potentially non-overlapping post-training data. (2) ReasoningFlow reveals diverse fine-grained reasoning behaviors (e.g., local verification, self-reflection, and assumptions) that can be used for better reasoning trace monitorability. (3) In LRMs, most of the erroneous steps are not used to derive final answers. (4) Mechanistic causal dependencies between steps do not reflect the language-level discourse structure. We release the dataset and code in: https://github.com/jinulee-v/reasoningflow.