Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex problems by generating structured, step-by-step reasoning content. However, exposing a model's internal reasoning process introduces additional safety risks; for example, recent studies show that LRMs are more vulnerable to jailbreak attacks than standard LLMs. In this paper, we investigate jailbreak attacks on LRMs and reveal that the attack success rate (ASR) is closely correlated with LRMs' attention patterns. Specifically, successful jailbreaks tend to assign lower attention to harmful tokens in the input prompt, while allocating higher attention to those tokens in the reasoning content. Motivated by this finding, we propose a novel jailbreak method for LRMs that leverages reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance attack effectiveness, explicitly incorporating attention signals into the reward function design. In addition, we introduce diverse persuasion strategies to enrich the RL action space, which consistently improves the ASR. Extensive experiments on five open-source and closed-source LRMs across three benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves substantially higher ASR, outperforming existing approaches in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and transferability.

Entropy-based deep reasoning has emerged as a promising direction for improving the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), but existing methods often either increase response length indiscriminately or shorten responses at the cost of accuracy. To better balance this trade-off, we introduce Conditional Entropy Shaping (CES), a framework that dynamically controls token-level response entropy, enabling LLMs to produce concise solutions on simple problems while encouraging deeper exploration on hard ones. Built on DAPO, CES uses token-level entropy as an uncertainty signal and applies a conditional bidirectional policy: it penalizes high-entropy "forking point" tokens on correct reasoning paths to improve conciseness, and rewards them on incorrect paths to encourage exploration and error correction. We implement CES on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-7B and evaluate it on 12 mathematical benchmarks. CES consistently improves average accuracy while reducing response length relative to DAPO, and supplementary experiments show similar trends on a smaller 1.5B backbone and on out-of-domain benchmarks.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) introduce new opportunities for safety monitoring through their Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, CoT is not always faithful to the model's final output, undermining its reliability as a monitoring tool. To address this, we investigate the hidden representations of LRMs to determine whether future behavior can be predicted from prompt and CoT representations. By evaluating a probe at each generated token, we construct a probe trajectory, the continuous evolution of a concept's probability across the reasoning process. We find that future model behavior is more distinguishable when examined over the full trajectory than from a single static prediction. To characterize these temporal dynamics, we extract signal-processing features that capture volatility, trend, and steady-state behavior, significantly improving the separation of future model states. We also present two methodological insights. First, template-based training data achieves near-parity with dynamically generated model responses, eliminating the need for a costly initial inference and labeling. Second, the choice of pooling operation is critical: average-pooling and last-token methods collapse to near-random performance, while max-pooling achieves up to 95% AUROC and yields stable probe trajectories. Using four datasets and four reasoning models across the domains of safety and mathematics, we demonstrate that trajectory features encode task-specific dynamics that improve outcome separability. These findings establish probe trajectories as a complementary framework for monitoring LRM behavior. Warning: This article contains potentially harmful content.

The advancement of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has catalyzed a paradigm shift from reactive fast thinking'' text generation to systematic, step-by-step slow thinking'' reasoning, unlocking state-of-the-art performance in complex mathematical and logical tasks. However, the field faces the fundamental gap between token-level behavioral analysis and internal reasoning mechanisms, and the instability of reinforcement learning (RL) for reasoning optimization relying on costly external verifiers. We identify and formally define Entropy-Gradient Inversion, a robust negative correlation between token entropy and logit gradients that acts as a definitive geometric fingerprint for LRM reasoning capability. Building on this, we propose Correlation-Regularized Group Policy Optimization (CorR-PO), which embeds this inversion signature into RL reward regularization. Extensive experiments on various reasoning benchmarks across multiple model scales show CorR-PO consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, confirming that stronger inversion directly correlates with superior reasoning performance.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance by generating long chains of thought (CoT), but often overthink, continuing to reason after a solution has already stabilized and thereby wasting tokens and increasing latency. Existing inference-time early-exit methods rely primarily on answer-level signals, such as confidence or trial-answer consistency, to decide when to stop. However, these signals mainly reflect answer readiness rather than reasoning convergence: they may trigger before the model has finished exploring or self-correcting, causing premature exits that can degrade final-answer accuracy and leave the retained reasoning chain semantically incomplete. We identify reasoning-level semantic redundancy as a complementary signal for semantic-preserving early exit: when successive steps no longer add novel progress and instead revisit established conclusions, the reasoning trajectory has likely converged. Building on this insight, we propose PUMA, a plug-and-play framework that combines a lightweight Redundancy Detector with answer-level verification. The detector flags semantically redundant candidate exits, while verification confirms whether stopping is safe, allowing PUMA to remove redundant continuation while preserving both answer accuracy and a coherent reasoning prefix. Across five LRMs and five challenging reasoning benchmarks, PUMA achieves 26.2% average token reduction while preserving accuracy and retained CoT quality. Additional experiments on code generation, zero-shot vision-language reasoning, and learned stopping-policy internalization further demonstrate that reasoning-level redundancy is a robust, transferable, and learnable signal for efficient reasoning. Our code is available at https://github.com/giovanni-vaccarino/PUMA.

Evaluations of unlearning on reasoning models sometimes show a bypass pattern. The answer side looks unlearned, but the model's own thinking trace keeps emitting the forgotten content, and the gap is taken as evidence that the weights still remember. We audit this reading on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B with LoRA-memorized fictional authors and NPO unlearning, conditioned on a six-token canary head. On one seed, swapping the thinking trace for a short non-canary prefill on the same weights drops the answer rate by as much as the bypass gap itself, whether the prefill mimics the training template or not. On a second seed the bypass gap shrinks rather than vanishing, and the prefill swap reverses direction and brings the answer rate to ceiling. A positive parser-split bypass gap thus does not by itself identify hidden weight-level memorization, and does not rule it out either. On a different distillate the same metric flips sign because the parser cannot find the closing tag. We recommend a decode-time template swap as a cheap sanity check alongside the canonical audit.

Recent progress in large language models has led to the emergence of reasoning models, which have shown strong performance on complex tasks through specialized fine-tuning procedures. While these methods reliably improve pass@1 accuracy, prior works have observed that they show a coverage shrinkage behavior, where pass@k degrades relative to the base model. In this paper, we investigate the cause of reasoning shrinkage under SFT-based post-training. We hypothesize that this behavior is driven by properties of the fine-tuning data, specifically related to decision points or "forks in the road" scenarios where model encounters indecipherable patterns with multiple valid reasoning paths. To test this hypothesis, we design controlled case studies that simulate such decision-point settings, spanning indecipherable nodes in graph branching, and reasoning modes. By tracking post-training dynamics in these settings, we find that the shrinkage phenomenon is tightly correlated with the prevalence of decision-point scenarios in the training data. We also demonstrate that this shrinkage behavior can be partially mitigated through targeted data synthesis design of decision-points and a more systematic diversity-encouraging decoding mechanism. Our findings identify data-centric factors as a key driver of shrinkage in reasoning models and highlight diversity-aware designs as an effective lever for controlling it. (Data and code for reproducing our experiments are available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/reasoning_forks )

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) generate chain-of-thought traces whose length tracks human reaction times across cognitive tasks, but recent debate questions whether this alignment reflects genuine computational structure or surface verbosity. We test whether the alignment varies with inference-time reasoning effort. Across GPT-OSS-20B and GPT-OSS-120B, three effort levels, and six reasoning tasks, within-task and cross-task alignment remain invariant: Bayes Factors lean toward the null, and mean alignment is numerically near-identical across conditions. A manipulation check reveals that the effort parameter sets an upper budget on generation rather than driving real-time allocation, suggesting that the allocation policy is crystallized at training time. Arithmetic complexity contrasts further show that token allocation tracks fine-grained, format-dependent human difficulty patterns, with model scale improving the match. Cognitive cost alignment between LRMs and humans appears to be a training-time achievement, robust to inference-time perturbations, supporting a compiled rather than online account of LRM problem-solving.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) substantially outperform their base LLM counterparts on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains poorly understood where base models go wrong during token-by-token generation and how to narrow this gap efficiently. We study the base-reasoning gap through quantifying token-level distributional disagreement between a base model and a stronger reasoning model using likelihood-based divergences. Across benchmarks, we find that the reasoning advantage is highly sparse and concentrates on a small set of early, planning-related decision tokens. For instance, on Qwen3-0.6B, only ~8% of generated tokens account for the salient disagreement, and these tokens concentrate early in the response, are strongly enriched in planning-related decisions (17x), and coincide with high base-model uncertainty -- suggesting that base models fail mainly at early planning points that steer the subsequent reasoning trajectory. Building on these findings, we propose disagreement-guided token intervention, a simple inference-time delegation scheme that performs a one-token takeover by the reasoning model only at high-disagreement positions and immediately switches back to the base model. With a small intervention budget, this sparse delegation substantially recovers and can even surpass the performance of a same-size reasoning model on challenging reasoning tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/AlphaLab-USTC/RRTokenIntervention.

Reasoning-trained language models often spend more tokens on harder problems, but longer chains of thought do not show whether a model is merely computing for more steps or following a different internal trajectory. We study this distinction through hidden-state trajectories during chain-of-thought generation across competitive programming, mathematics, and Boolean satisfiability. Raw trajectory geometry is strongly shaped by generation length: longer generations mechanically alter path statistics, so difficulty-dependent comparisons are misleading without adjustment. After residualizing trajectory statistics on length, difficulty remains systematically coupled to corrected trajectory geometry across all domains studied. The clearest reasoning-specific separation appears in the code domain, where harder problems show more direct corrected trajectories and less heterogeneous local curvature in reasoning-trained models than in matched instruction-tuned baselines. Corrected difficulty-geometry coupling is weaker, but still present, in mathematics and Boolean satisfiability. Prompt-stage linear probes do not mirror the code-domain separation, and behavioral annotations show that stronger corrected coupling co-occurs with strategy shifts and uncertainty monitoring. Together, these findings establish length correction as a prerequisite for generation-time trajectory analysis and show that reasoning training can be associated with distinct corrected trajectory geometry, with the strength of the effect depending on the domain.

Reactive synthesis, the problem of automatically constructing a hardware circuit from a logical specification, is a long-standing challenge in formal verification. It is elusive for two reasons: It is algorithmically hard, and writing formal specifications by hand is notoriously difficult. In this paper, we tackle both sides of the problem. For the algorithmic side, we present a neuro-symbolic approach to reactive synthesis that couples large reasoning models with model checkers to iteratively repair a synthesized Verilog implementation via sound symbolic feedback. Our approach solves more benchmarks than the best dedicated tools in the annual synthesis competition and extends to constructing parameterized systems, a problem known to be undecidable. On the specification side, we introduce an autoformalization step that shifts the specification task from temporal logic to natural language by introducing a hand-authored dataset of natural-language specifications for evaluation. We demonstrate performance comparable to that of starting from formal specifications, establishing natural synthesis as a viable end-to-end workflow.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) embedded in agentic frameworks have transformed information retrieval from static, long context question answering into open-ended exploration. Yet real world use requires models to discover and synthesize "long-tail" facts from dispersed sources, a capability that remains under-evaluated. We introduce PolitNuggets, a multilingual benchmark for agentic information synthesis via constructing political biographies for 400 global elites, covering over 10000 political facts. We standardize evaluation with an optimized multi agent system and propose FactNet, an evidence conditional protocol that scores discovery, fine-grained accuracy, and efficiency. Across models and settings, we find that current systems often struggle with fine-grained details, and vary substantially in efficiency. Finally, using benchmark diagnostics, we relate agent performance to underlying model capabilities, highlighting the importance of short-context extraction, multilingual robustness, and reliable tool use.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are increasingly integrated into systems requiring reliable multi-step inference, yet this growing dependence exposes new vulnerabilities related to computational availability. In particular, LRMs exhibit a tendency to "overthink", producing excessively long and redundant reasoning traces, when confronted with incomplete or logically inconsistent inputs. This behavior significantly increases inference latency and energy consumption, forming a potential vector for denial-of-service (DoS) style resource exhaustion. In this work, we investigate this attack surface and propose an automated black-box framework that induces overthinking in LRMs by systematically perturbing the logical structure of input problems. Our method employs a hierarchical genetic algorithm (HGA) operating on structured problem decompositions, and optimizes a composite fitness function designed to maximize both response length and reflective overthinking markers. Across four state-of-the-art reasoning models, the proposed method substantially amplifies output length, achieving up to a 26.1x increase on the MATH benchmark and consistently outperforming benign and manually crafted missing-premise baselines. We further demonstrate strong transferability, showing that adversarial inputs evolved using a small proxy model retain high effectiveness against large commercial LRMs. These findings highlight overthinking as a shared and exploitable vulnerability in modern reasoning systems, underscoring the need for more robust defenses.

Validating training data for reasoning models typically requires expensive trial-and-error fine-tuning cycles. In this work, we investigate whether the utility of a reasoning dataset can be reliably predicted prior to training using intrinsic data metrics. We propose a suite of quantitative measures and evaluate their predictive power by fine-tuning 8B and 11B models on semantically distinct variants of a Polish reasoning dataset. Our analysis reveals that these intrinsic metrics demonstrate strong and significant correlations with downstream model performance. Crucially, we find that the predictors of utility are scale-dependent: smaller models rely on alignment-focused metrics to ensure precision, whereas larger models benefit from high redundancy, utilizing verbose traces to solve complex tasks. These findings establish a scale-aware framework for validating reasoning data, enabling practitioners to select effective training sets without the need for exhaustive empirical testing.

Long chain-of-thought (Long CoT) reasoning improves performance on multi-step problems, but it also induces overthinking. This inefficiency is especially problematic in low-data fine-tuning regimes, where real applications adapt reasoning models with limited supervision and cannot rely on large-scale teacher distillation or heavy test-time control. To address this, we propose STOP (Structured On-policy Pruning), an on-policy algorithm for analyzing and pruning long-form reasoning traces. STOP constructs self-distilled traces from the model. Then it maps each trace into a structured reasoning interface through node segmentation, taxonomy annotation, and reasoning-tree construction. On top of this interface, we introduce ECN (Earliest Correct Node), which retains the shortest prefix ending at the earliest node. Experiments on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-LLaMA-3-8B across GSM8K, Math 500, and AIME 2024 show that STOP reduces generated tokens by 19.4% to 42.4% while largely preserving accuracy in low-data fine-tuning. Beyond efficiency, our analyses show that STOP induces much smaller distributional shift than teacher-guided pruning, improves the structural efficiency of generated reasoning, and reallocates reasoning effort away from redundant verification and backtracking toward more productive exploration.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) improve problem solving through extended reasoning, but often misallocate test-time compute. Existing efficiency methods reduce cost by compressing reasoning traces or conditioning budget on perceived difficulty, yet largely overlook solvability. As a result, they may spend large budgets on queries beyond the model's capability while compressing hard-but-solvable queries that require deeper reasoning. In this work, we formulate adaptive reasoning as a computational investment under uncertainty, where budget should follow the expected return of reasoning rather than perceived difficulty alone. To instantiate this principle, we propose Budget-Efficient Thinking (BET), a two-stage framework that combines behavioral cold-start with GRPO under an investment-cost-aware reward. By aligning solve-or-fold decisions with rollout-derived solvability, BET learns three behaviors: (1) short solve, answering easy queries concisely; (2) nice fold, abstaining early when continued reasoning has near-zero expected return; and (3) hero call, preserving sufficient compute for hard-but-solvable queries. Across seven benchmarks and three base models, BET reduces reasoning tokens by ~55% on average while achieving overall performance improvements, and transfers zero-shot from mathematical reasoning to scientific QA and logical reasoning with comparable efficiency gains.

Large reasoning models, such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1, tend to become increasingly verbose as their reasoning capabilities improve. These inflated Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories often exceed what the underlying problems require, wasting compute, latency, and context budgets. While introducing length-based efficiency rewards during reinforcement learning offers a natural remedy, existing methods struggle with two fundamental challenges: the optimal balance between correctness and efficiency is non-stationary throughout training, and intrinsic reasoning budgets vary drastically across problems. Relying on static reward weights and global length constraints inevitably forces a compromise between degraded accuracy and unrealized compression. To overcome these limitations, we propose LEAD (Length-Efficient Adaptive and Dynamic reasoning), a method that replaces static heuristics with online, self-adaptive mechanisms. LEAD dynamically calibrates the correctness-efficiency trade-off at each step using a Potential-Scaled Instability, directing optimization capacity to the most informative learning signal. Furthermore, it estimates an adaptive per-problem target length online based on the model's own correct rollouts, applying a symmetric efficiency reward that penalizes both overthinking and over-compression. Evaluated on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, LEAD achieves the highest accuracy and Accuracy-Efficiency Score among RL-trained efficient-reasoning methods while producing substantially shorter outputs than the base model.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit behaviors suggesting awareness of their evaluation context, often adapting their reasoning strategies in benchmark settings. Prior work has shown that such evaluation awareness can distort performance measurements; however, it remains unclear whether this phenomenon reflects a single behavioral artifact or a deeper internal structure within the model. We propose that LLMs maintain a decomposable space of functional metacognitive states: internal variables encoding factors such as evaluation awareness, self-assessed capability, perceived risk, computational effort allocation, audience expertise adaptation, and intentionality. Through residual stream analysis across multiple reasoning models, we demonstrate that these states are linearly decodable from internal activations and exhibit distinct layer-wise profiles. Moreover, by steering model activations along probe-derived directions, we show that each functional metacognitive state causally modulates reasoning behavior in dissociable ways, affecting verbosity, accuracy, and safety-related responses across tasks. Our findings suggest that benchmark performance reflects not only task competence but also the activation of specific functional metacognitive states. We argue that understandi ng and controlling these internal states is essential for reliable evaluation and deployment of reasoning models, and we provide a mechanistic framework for studying functional m etacognition in artificial systems. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/xlands/meta-cognition.

While explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) empowers large reasoning models (LRMs), it enables the generation of riskier final answers. Current alignment paradigms primarily rely on externally enforced compliance, optimizing models to detect malicious prompts rather than evaluating the safety of their own outputs. We argue that this approach remains largely behavioral: our empirical analysis reveals that ostensibly aligned models lack intrinsic safety understanding, often failing to verify their own response safety and remaining vulnerable to adversarial jailbreaks. To address this fundamental limitation, we propose Safety Internal (SInternal), a framework that internalizes safety specifications by training LRMs exclusively on safety verification tasks to critique their own generated answers using expert reasoning trajectories. We demonstrate that learning to verify induces a strong generalization for response safety, significantly enhancing robustness against out-of-domain jailbreaks. Furthermore, when combined with reinforcement learning, SInternal serves as a superior initialization compared to standard supervised fine-tuning, suggesting that internalizing safety understanding creates a more robust foundation for alignment than merely mimicking safe behaviors. Our codes are available at https://github.com/AlphaLab-USTC/SInternal

Reasoning-centric large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance by generating intermediate reasoning trajectories, but often incur excessive token usage and high inference-time decoding cost. We observe that, when solving the same problems, larger reasoning models can often produce more concise traces, whereas smaller reasoning models tend to generate longer and more redundant trajectories. This is especially problematic in real-world deployment, where memory, latency, and serving-cost constraints often favor smaller models. Our observations suggest that reasoning compression can be transferred from large models to small ones rather than enforced through explicit length constraints. Based on this insight, we propose Mixed-Policy Distillation (MPD), a reasoning compression framework that transfers concise reasoning behavior from a larger-sized teacher to a smaller student by distilling teacher-compressed student trajectories. Unlike on-policy distillation, which aligns the student with teacher distributions over verbose student trajectories, or off-policy distillation, which relies on teacher-generated trajectories and may suffer from distribution mismatch, MPD combines the strengths of both. Given a student-sampled trajectory, the teacher rewrites it into a more concise reasoning trace, and the student is trained via KL-based alignment on the compressed trajectory. This preserves student-policy exploration while injecting teacher-guided compression. Experiments on Qwen3-1.7B show that MPD reduces token usage by up to 27.1% while improving performance across multiple reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating an effective approach to efficient small-model reasoning.

Large reasoning models achieve high accuracy through extended chain-of-thought but generate 5--8 more tokens than necessary, applying verbose reasoning uniformly regardless of problem difficulty. We propose Hint Tuning, a data-efficient approach that teaches models to calibrate reasoning depth. Our key insight: the corresponding instruct model serves as an ideal difficulty probe. By testing what the instruct model can solve with varying guidance, we automatically construct training data across three states: No-Hint (direct answer), Sparse-Hint (minimal prefix), and Full-Hint (complete reasoning). This converts the abstract challenge of difficulty labeling into a measurable consistency check between the instruct and reasoning models. With only 1K self-annotated samples, Hint Tuning achieves 24--66% token reduction (31.5% average) across mainstream reasoning models (Qwen3-Thinking, DeepSeek-R1-Distill) at multiple scales (4B--32B) while maintaining competitive accuracy on five benchmarks. Unlike methods requiring massive distillation datasets or expensive RL, we achieve superior efficiency through simple alignment with the instruct model's capabilities. Code and data are available at https://github.com/redai-infra/hint-tuning.

Humans rapidly learn abstract knowledge when encountering novel environments and flexibly deploy this knowledge to guide efficient and intelligent action. Can modern AI systems learn and plan in a similar way? We study this question using a dataset of complex human gameplay with concurrent fMRI recordings, in which participants learn novel video games that require rule discovery, hypothesis revision, and multi-step planning. We jointly evaluate models by their ability to play the games, match human learning behavior, and predict brain activity during the same task, comparing a suite of frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) against model-free and model-based deep reinforcement learning agents and a Bayesian theory-based agent. We find that frontier LRMs most closely match human behavioral patterns during game discovery and predict brain activity an order of magnitude better than both reinforcement learning alternatives across cortical and subcortical regions, with effects robust to permutation controls. Through targeted manipulations, we further show that brain alignment reflects the model's in-context representation of the game state rather than its downstream planning or reasoning. Our results establish LRMs as compelling computational accounts of human learning and decision making in complex, naturalistic environments. Project page with interactive replays: https://botcs.github.io/reason-to-play/

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve strong performance via extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet suffer from excessive token consumption and high inference latency. Existing reinforcement learning (RL) approaches for CoT compression rely on uniform, static length penalties that neglect model capability dynamics and problem-level difficulty variation. We propose ExpThink\xspace, an RL framework that addresses both dimensions through two complementary mechanisms. First, experience-guided reward shaping tracks the shortest correct solution found so far for each problem and applies a three-tier reward: full credit for concise correct responses, discounted credit for verbose correct ones, and zero for incorrect ones. The threshold tightens automatically with model improvement, forming a self-evolving curriculum that requires no manual scheduling. Second, difficulty-adaptive advantage replaces standard deviation normalization with correct-count normalization, yielding monotonically difficulty-scaled gradients that amplify learning on hard problems to preserve accuracy while suppressing gradients on easy ones to encourage brevity. Together, these mechanisms enforce an accuracy-first, compression-second training objective. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that ExpThink\xspace reduces average response length by up to 77% while simultaneously improving accuracy, achieving up to $3\times$ higher accuracy-efficiency ratio (accuracy divided by average token count) than the vanilla baseline and outperforming existing RL-based compression methods on both metrics.

Modern reasoning language models generate dense, sequential chain-of-thought traces implicitly assuming that every token contributes and that steps must be consumed in order. We challenge both assumptions through a systematic intervention pipeline--removal, masking, shuffling, and noise injection--applied to model-generated reasoning chains across three models and three benchmarks. Our findings are counterintuitive on three dimensions. Order: Does the sequential order of a reasoning chain matter for answer extraction? No--line-level shuffling reduces accuracy by less than 0.5 pp; word-level shuffling retains 62%-89% accuracy; only token-level shuffling collapses to near zero. Pretrained-only and instruction-tuned variants exhibit near-identical tolerance (78.67% vs. 78.00% under line shuffling), indicating order-independence originates from pretraining rather than reasoning-specific fine-tuning. Dense: Is all the information in a reasoning chain important for answer extraction? No--masking numeric digits collapses accuracy to exactly 0%, while masking alphabetic prose improves accuracy by 4.7 pp. Robustness: Is a reasoning chain that is both order-shuffling and non-dense still robust? Yes--the most aggressively reduced representation (all natural language removed, lines arbitrarily shuffled) still achieves 83% accuracy, and injecting false answers at 3x true-answer frequency leaves accuracy unchanged (83.3%->83.3%), falsifying a frequency-based extraction account. These results establish that answer extraction operates on a sparse, order-insensitive, and structurally robust informational substrate, opening paths toward parallelized and token-efficient reasoning generation.

Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding. Furthermore, the rapid proliferation of LLMs has created the implicit assumption that more sophisticated prompting techniques yield better performance. Several studies claim such gains, but report them under differing models, prompt wordings and answer-extraction rules, so the gains cannot be attributed to the technique alone. We address this gap with ReasonLab, an evaluation framework in which the prompting technique is a first-class experimental variable alongside the model and the dataset, and which retains every generation for inspection. Using ReasonLab we conduct a controlled study of 8 prompting techniques across 10 MCQA datasets, 27 model configurations and 480,927 evaluations at temperature 0. We find that the prompting technique is a minor determinant of accuracy: on configurations without a reasoning budget the reasoning triggers improve on direct prompting by only 3.92 to 4.69 pp and are indistinguishable from one another, and on configurations with reasoning enabled no technique differs by more than 0.51 pp. Self-Generate is the only technique with a consistent effect, a reduction of 2.95 pp. We further investigate three phenomena: (1) the comparison of models on a common set of datasets, where model size does not predict accuracy, (2) the trade-offs across thinking budgets, where enabling reasoning is worth up to 12.74 pp whereas an eightfold budget increase adds only 0.48 to 2.10 pp, and (3) the variation in dataset difficulty, with 60% of benchmarks below 70% accuracy and a 43.9 pp spread from easiest to hardest. These results suggest that, for MCQA, the prompting technique is a minor lever compared with enabling model reasoning, and that substantial headroom remains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved great improvements in recent years. Nevertheless, it still remains unclear how good LLMs are for reasoning tasks, especially for long-chain ones. In this paper, we evaluate LLMs' performance on the simplest yet long-chain reasoning task, namely the Equivalence Class Problem (ECP), i.e., determining whether two variables are equal given a set of randomly generated equivalence relations. We consider both reasoning and non-reasoning representative LLMs over a large variety of problem instances, ranging over different numbers of variables, connectivity probabilities, prompts, and other factors. The experimental results show that non-reasoning LLMs fail ECP, while reasoning models are significantly better but still struggle to completely solve this problem. Interestingly, considering various connectivity probabilities with a fixed number of variables, we observe that, for non-reasoning models, the hardest problem instances coincide with the phase transition point of ln n/(n-1), suggesting the chaos of the problem; in contrast, for reasoning models, the hardest ones coincide with the biggest diameter, suggesting the reasoning difficulty of the problem.

Tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) offers a direct way to extend thinking models beyond the limits of text-only reasoning. Paradoxically, we observe that tool-enabled evaluation can degrade reasoning performance even when the strong thinking models make almost no actual tool calls. In this paper, we investigate how to inject natural tool-use behavior into a strong thinking model without sacrificing its no-tool reasoning ability, and present a comprehensive TIR recipe. We highlight that (i) the effectiveness of TIR supervised fine-tuning (SFT) hinges on the learnability of teacher trajectories, which should prioritize problems inherently suited for tool-augmented solutions; (ii) controlling the proportion of tool-use trajectories could mitigate the catastrophic forgetting of text-only reasoning capacity; (iii) optimizing for pass@k and response length instead of training loss could maximize TIR SFT gains while preserving headroom for reinforcement learning (RL) exploration; (iv) a stable RL with verifiable rewards (RLVR) stage, built upon suitable SFT initialization and explicit safeguards against mode collapse, provides a simple yet remarkably effective solution. When applied to Qwen3 thinking models at 4B and 30B scales, our recipe yields models that achieve state-of-the-art performance in a wide range of benchmarks among open-source models, such as 96.7% and 99.2% on AIME 2025 for 4B and 30B, respectively.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly expose chain-of-thought-like reasoning for transparency, verification, and deliberate problem solving. This creates a safety blind spot: harmful or policy-violating content may appear in reasoning traces even when final answers appear safe. We test whether final-answer safety is a sufficient proxy for the full reasoning-answer trajectory by scoring both stages under a unified twenty-principle safety rubric. Using prompts from seven public harmfulness and jailbreak sources, plus four out-of-distribution (OOD) sources, we evaluate 15 open-weight and API-based LRMs across 41K prompts per model. Reasoning traces consistently reveal additional safety risks beyond final answers, especially in high-severity stage-wise failures: leak cases, where unsafe reasoning precedes a safe-looking answer, and escape cases, where benign-looking reasoning precedes an unsafe final response. Principle-level analysis shows that risk concentrates in misinformation, legal compliance, discrimination, physical harm, and psychological harm. We further propose adaptive multi-principle steering, a white-box test-time mitigation that learns one unsafe-to-safe activation direction per safety principle and activates only directions whose current hidden state is closer to the unsafe than safe centroid. On three steerable open reasoning models, adaptive steering reduces unsafe counts in both reasoning traces and final answers on held-out and OOD benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-7B achieves a 40.8% average unsafe-count reduction while retaining 97.7% macro-averaged accuracy on BBH, GSM8K, and MMLU. These results suggest that LRM safety should be evaluated and mitigated over the full exposed reasoning-answer trajectory, not only at the final-answer stage.

We present ZAYA1-8B, a reasoning-focused mixture-of-experts (MoE) model with 700M active and 8B total parameters, built on Zyphra's MoE++ architecture. ZAYA1-8B's core pretraining, midtraining, and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) were performed on a full-stack AMD compute, networking, and software platform. With under 1B active parameters, ZAYA1-8B matches or exceeds DeepSeek-R1-0528 on several challenging mathematics and coding benchmarks, and remains competitive with substantially larger open-weight reasoning models. ZAYA1-8B was trained from scratch for reasoning, with reasoning data included from pretraining onward using an answer-preserving trimming scheme. Post-training uses a four-stage RL cascade: reasoning warmup on math and puzzles; a 400-task RLVE-Gym curriculum; math and code RL with test-time compute traces and synthetic code environments built from competitive-programming references; and behavioral RL for chat and instruction following. We also introduce Markovian RSA, a test-time compute method that recursively aggregates parallel reasoning traces while carrying forward only bounded-length reasoning tails between rounds. In TTC evaluation, Markovian RSA raises ZAYA1-8B to 91.9% on AIME'25 and 89.6% on HMMT'25 while carrying forward only a 4K-token tail, narrowing the gap to much larger reasoning models including Gemini-2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, and GPT-5-High.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) trained with Long Chain-of-Thought have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation and mathematical reasoning. However, their potential in multi-turn Text-to-SQL tasks remains largely underexplored. Existing approaches typically rely on unstable API-based inference or require expensive fine-tuning on small-scale models. In this work, we present Rose-SQL, a training-free framework that leverages small-scale LRMs through in-context learning to enable accurate context-dependent parsing. We introduce the Role-State, a fine-grained representation that bridges the structural gap between schema linking and SQL generation by serving as a structural blueprint. To handle conversational dependencies, Rose-SQL traces the evolution of Role-State through historical context via structural isomorphism checks, guiding the model to infer the possible SQL composition for the current question through verified interaction trajectories. Experiments on the SParC and CoSQL benchmarks show that, within the Qwen3 series, Rose-SQL outperforms in-context learning baselines at the 4B scale and substantially surpasses state-of-the-art fine-tuned models at the 8B and 14B scales, while showing consistent gains on additional reasoning backbones.