Reasoning Paths

Adaptive learning systems commonly formulate learning path planning as Exercise-Centric (EC) recommendation, where the next step is inferred from item-level interaction logs. Evaluating goal-oriented guidance additionally requires explicit learner goals and curriculum-scale prerequisites: learners with similar exercise records may need different paths toward their targets. We therefore study Knowledge-Centric (KC) personalized learning path planning, where a planner must reason over learner profiles, mastery states, and prerequisite knowledge structures to decide which textbook, unit, and concept should be studied next. To support this setting, we introduce PersonaPath, a benchmark that pairs 2,000 fine-grained learner personas with a hierarchical knowledge graph of 347 textbooks, 1,751 units, and 4,092 concepts across 77 subjects. We evaluate representative LLMs on PersonaPath. Results show that even the strongest LLM reaches only a 29.5% final pass rate in Basic Education, and that the main bottleneck lies in adaptivity, where no model exceeds 44.7% in tailoring paths to individual learners.

In-context learning (ICL) is widely used in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and achieves strong performance across a wide range of multimodal tasks. However, existing multimodal ICL methods often rely on surface level imitation of in-context demonstrations, making it difficult for MLLMs to align their responses with the reasoning path required by the given multimodal input. This limitation becomes more pronounced in complex multimodal tasks, thereby restricting further improvements in MLLM performance. To address this issue, we propose a new multimodal ICL framework that combines contrastive demonstration modeling with the self-refinement capability of MLLMs. Specifically, our framework reformulates each demonstration by explicitly contrasting a suboptimal response with a better response under the same input, together with a reasoning path that reveals how the response should be refined. This contrastive formulation makes the reasoning path toward the desired response more explicit and guides the MLLM beyond superficial imitation. Furthermore, because effective refinement depends on the current response, we introduce a response-conditioned retrieval mechanism to select demonstrations whose reasoning paths are more relevant to the current response. In addition, we use a lightweight alignment controller to predict response quality and determine whether further refinement is needed. Experiments on three types of multimodal tasks show that the proposed framework consistently improves MLLM performance, with particularly notable gains on visual question answering (VQA).

Multi-step LLM reasoning lacks a machine-recheckable ledger: discarded reasoning paths leave no auditable record. We propose the Deposon scattering layer, which binds each node of an LLM-generated concept-decomposition graph to a two-parameter Deposon state; paths undergo three-channel scattering -- transmission, reflection, irreversible dissipation -- obeying T+R+A=1 for arbitrary parameters, with a maximum per-path energy-audit deviation of 2.2E-16 (machine epsilon). We report all three evidence tiers honestly. On synthetic trap benchmarks the path-filtering gain is closed (pre-registered): unified reaches 100% versus a decoy-capture baseline at 7%/10%. On real benchmarks the layer is indistinguishable from a trivial six-keyword rule filter (GSM8K 0.87 >= 0.85, McNemar p=0.5; StrategyQA 0.899 = 0.899); no difference is detected here, so we sharpen the claim to "the differential value lies solely in machine verifiability." Fusion yields a second negative result: convex combinations with a semantic prior never improve (physics 0.484 -> 0.452), and the apparent lambda=2 gain is an anti-field artifact; any fusion gain must be nonlinear. Modeling the reverse dynamics as a potential game on the graph, we evidence an auditable scalar's monotonicity and near-gradientness and quantify the empirical coordination ratio (ECR). The three formalized dynamical-equivalence propositions (P1a/P1b/T-P1c) are falsified under the pre-registered kill protocol, and the potential-game claim is downgraded to approximate (cyclic-graph median residual 0.669): only consistency-level evidence survives at the dynamical level. Code: github.com/zeroandcat/Deposon.

Despite the rapid progress of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in 2D vision-language tasks, robust multi-view spatial reasoning remains a fundamental bottleneck due to the lack of structured 3D cognitive pathways in existing datasets. To address this, we introduce MV-STRIDE, a Multi-View hierarchical SpaTial Reasoning dataset with Interdependent and DEcomposed capabilitiEs. Moving beyond flat data structures, MV-STRIDE explicitly models the dependency relationships between foundational perception, scene understanding, and complex contextual reasoning, providing a coherent learning pathway aligned with human spatial cognition. We develop a systematic QA generation pipeline leveraging diverse 3D scene sources that enforces cross-view dependency constraints to prevent single-view solvability, generating multi-level spatial reasoning tasks supported by cognitively grounded chain-of-thought supervision for complex inference. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that our multi-stage training framework based on our hierarchical dataset achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple spatial reasoning benchmarks, notably the multi-view oriented MMSI-Bench. Our approach enables MLLMs to maintain robust, 3D-consistent spatial reasoning across diverse viewpoints. The code and dataset are available at https://co1dspring.github.io/MV-STRIDE/.

Inference-time search with large language models (LLMs) often concentrates on a small set of structurally or semantically similar trajectories, leaving alternatives underexplored---a failure mode we call \textit{reasoning basin collapse}. We introduce BASIN, a training-free, structure-aware selection method that groups reasoning states into basins and penalizes repeated visits to the same strategy, thereby reallocating search across genuinely distinct reasoning paths under a fixed compute budget. Under matched inference budgets, BASIN improves over Tree of Thoughts (ToT) by up to $+22$pp on Game of 24 and $+6.7$pp on MuSR. A quality-aware variant, QA-BASIN, further improves robustness by preserving high-quality basins when unconditional diversification over-explores. To explain when basin-aware selection helps, we introduce the redundancy gap $Δ$, which measures how differently search concentrates for correct versus incorrect predictions: standard ToT often operates near $Δ\approx 0$, while BASIN consistently shifts $Δ$ positive. More broadly, BASIN suggests structure-aware selection as a simple and general approach to improving inference-time reasoning. Code can be found at https://github.com/GitHubLuCheng/basin.

Generating multiple diverse and high-quality solutions is valuable for many applications, such as code-test generation and drug discovery. However, Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to converge on a single high-confidence solution during inference, limiting exploration of alternative valid solution paths. Existing test-time methods promote diversity through tree-like search and prune semantically similar branches using response-level semantic embeddings. However, we find that such embeddings are easily confounded by linguistic and stylistic similarities, making it difficult to distinguish genuinely distinct solution paths. To address this, we introduce Answer Probing, which probes the potential answer an LLM would reach from an intermediate reasoning path. We demonstrate that the hidden states of probed answers more effectively differentiate distinct solution paths than semantic embeddings, and the perplexity of probed answers serves as a practical proxy for reasoning correctness. Based on these findings, we propose Answer Probing-Guided Tree Search (APTS), which guides the tree search by the probed answers' hidden state similarity and perplexity. Experiments on three reasoning tasks across two LLMs show that APTS consistently enhances solution diversity, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness.

Continual self-evolution requires LLM agents to transform environmental interactions into reliable and reusable experience. Existing methods typically refine individual trajectories or abstract shared knowledge from related trajectories, but their experience representations are often disconnected from the underlying reasoning process. This limits feedback attribution, cross-task transfer, and update and retrieval efficiency, particularly in complex reasoning tasks with outcome-level feedback. To overcome this limitation, we propose \textbf{T}ree-\textbf{o}f-\textbf{E}xperience (ToE), a structured experience-management framework that aligns experience organization with the hierarchical reasoning process of LLM agents. Specifically, ToE organizes the experience into a shared tree of analytical perspectives and reasoning paths, whose reliability is calibrated through environmental outcomes to support systematic updating, transfer, and efficient retrieval. The experimental results on \textsc{Game of 24} and \textsc{FinEvolveBench} show that ToE substantially improves both problem-solving performance and efficiency. On \textsc{Game of 24}, ToE achieves a 31.4% relative improvement in accuracy over the experience-free ToT baseline. On \textsc{FinEvolveBench}, ToE improves tsIC by an average of 41.24% over the experience-free pipeline across 12 evaluation settings, whereas conventional experience-management methods often underperform experience-free baselines.

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) typically optimize a single topology, restricting reasoning to a narrow trajectory and limiting comprehensive analytical capacity. Naively merging multiple topologies into a composite graph introduces redundant noise propagation across irrelevant connections, degrading solution quality. To address this dilemma, we propose \textbf{Hierarchical Sparse Coordination over a Union of Complementary Topologies for MAS (HELENA)}, a multi-agent framework that balances diverse reasoning paths with sparse task-dependent execution. \helena{} constructs a union MAS graph from complementary candidate topologies selected via Monte Carlo Tree Search and Determinantal Point Process, broadening the reasoning trajectory for comprehensive analysis of complex problems. A Hierarchical Sparse Coordination module then activates only a sparse subgraph at each step while agents exchange compressed latent briefs to suppress redundant noise propagation. Finally, a Local Self-Refinement stage identifies decision units with discrepancy evidence and rewrites them only when contrastive evidence simultaneously confirms a reliable solution-side failure and a challenger-side improvement. Experiments across eight benchmarks show that \helena{} achieves state-of-the-art results on all benchmarks, with an average gain of \pctup{3.47} over the strongest baseline and up to \pctup{10.34} on MMLU-Pro, achieving larger improvements on harder benchmarks at a reasonable additional cost.

Large language models (LLMs) enable autonomous agents for reasoning, planning, and tool use. Recent systems increasingly organize these agents as graphs of specialized, interconnected nodes. Although graph-based orchestration supports flexible decomposition and coordination, it creates a key challenge: \textbf{attention allocation}. As workflows grow, existing approaches often execute graph components uniformly, wasting resources on irrelevant or low-impact tasks. We introduce \textbf{Attention Orchestration}, a paradigm that extends Transformer-style attention from token representations to workflow-level agent coordination. Our framework, \textbf{Adaptive Goal-aware Attention Orchestration (AGAO)}, dynamically estimates agent importance based on user objectives, graph dependencies, and computational constraints. AGAO combines three components: (1) goal-aware attention, measuring semantic relevance between user goals and agent capabilities; (2) topology-aware attention, modeling structural dependencies in agent graphs; and (3) resource-aware attention, allocating budgets and execution priorities across heterogeneous agents. Together, these mechanisms transform static agent graphs into adaptive systems that focus computation on goal-critical reasoning paths. Experiments across diverse multi-agent workloads show that AGAO improves task effectiveness while reducing unnecessary computation, latency, and token consumption compared with existing graph-based execution strategies. Our work establishes \textbf{Attention Engineering} as a direction for scalable, intelligent multi-agent systems. Code: https://github.com/MingzhouFan97/AGAO.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at multi-step reasoning, yet current parallel reasoning approaches often fail to distinguish the contributions of individual reasoning paths. Many paths may be redundant, misleading, or even detrimental, but outcome-level rewards assign uniform reward, leading to ambiguous learning signals and unstable training. We propose Parallel Shapley, a reinforcement learning framework that attributes fine-grained, path-level contributions in multi-path reasoning. Treating each path as a player in a cooperative game, we leverage Shapley values to quantify marginal contributions, using a generative reward model to evaluate path utilities and Monte Carlo sampling for efficient approximation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that Parallel Shapley outperforms existing baselines while providing more stable and interpretable training. Our framework effectively "fishes out the free riders," assigning reward proportionally and improving multi-path reasoning in LLMs.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) provides reliable outcome supervision for language model reasoning, but a scalar trajectory reward offers limited token-level guidance. Existing self-distillation methods add a privileged teacher but typically assign it a fixed role: direct distribution matching may destabilize successful behavior, while magnitude-only modulation offers little corrective guidance after failure. We observe that successful and failed trajectories require different forms of hindsight supervision. A successful response already contains a valid student-generated reasoning path and can therefore serve as privileged context rather than being replaced by an external rationale. A failed response, however, requires corrective reference information. We introduce Hybrid Hindsight Self-Distillation ($\mathrm{H}^{2}\mathrm{SD}$), which jointly adapts teacher context and update strategy to trajectory correctness. For successful trajectories, we construct the teacher context from the verified response and a rephrasing instruction, and use the teacher only to re-evaluate the original response tokens. The resulting probabilities refine token credit assignment without changing the direction determined by the reward. For failed trajectories, a verified reference hint provides corrective guidance through reverse-KL distillation. Experiments on challenging reasoning benchmarks show that H$^2$SD achieves the strongest overall performance among representative RLVR and self-distillation baselines, with stable optimization and a favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-off.

When does a committed intermediate stage in an LLM reasoning pipeline earn its cost? Constrained Path Reasoning (CPR) pairs a source-aware path hypothesis with stage-level accounting. Search generates provisional states; trusted or validated invariants can constrain hard, while other proposals remain soft and revisable. CPR predicts that task-compatible commitments can factor transitions, concentrate candidate mass, induce regularity, and expose feedback when their gains exceed propagated error and execution cost. The formalism covers discrete commitments and continuous flows and measures effective branching, endpoint concentration, and cost per usable output. Across 1,180 generated QCQPs and 40 engineered degenerate polynomial instances (2,140 endpoints), residual triage recovers 63.0% of repair-all's additional feasible yield with 17.7% of its attempts. Fixed-LLM accounting (270 unique calls shared across nested arms) finds usable yield of 41.1% direct, 90.0% after formalization and deterministic execution, 20.0% after one-shot convexification, and 21.1% for the full path. In 120 paired-condition calls, a two-action rollback rule reaches 90% usable yield versus 36.7% for the feedback-conditioned selector. Two endpoint probes separate source from validation: a 72-output cross-trajectory transplant reduces entropy and acceptable mass; a 24-output same-call self-proposal pilot gives unchanged two-repeat collision entropy, 25.0% versus 8.3% usable yield, and 1/8 deterministically confirmed endpoint checks. Model-generated states supply hypotheses; trusted execution earns constraint strength.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) optimizes LLMs using sparse verifiable final-answer rewards. This sparse anchor reliably verifies whether a trajectory succeeds but provides no direct feedback on the reasoning path that produced it. Before success, prerequisite progress on hard problems receives no reward signal; after success, outcome rewards cannot distinguish well-organized correct trajectories from redundant or locally flawed ones. We introduce SCOPE-RL (Scaffolded Chain Optimization with Process Efficiency), a two-stage framework that densifies this anchor while retaining the GRPO update: Adaptive Scaffolded RL adds prefix-decomposed verifiable rewards on answer-hidden sub-question chains before success, and Quality-Aware Process RL applies correctness-gated process-shape rewards to refine correct trajectories after success. An expert-validated Step-Quality Evaluation Protocol evaluates useful-step density, error localization, and token efficiency beyond final-answer accuracy. On Qwen3-8B-Instruct trained on DAPO-Math and Big-Math, SCOPE-RL improves average accuracy by up to 11.2 pp and reduces reasoning tokens by up to 27.1% over outcome-only GRPO; the gains hold under GSPO and on Qwen3-0.6B-Instruct, indicating that reward-signal densification is complementary to policy-update-level RLVR advances. Code and data are available at https://github.com/tokencraft-lab/SCOPE-RL.

Mirror Theory proposes that an intelligent system should be studied not only by what it represents, but by what coherent continuations it can sustain under repeated reflection. We make this claim operational through \emph{viable path entropy} (VPE), a finite-budget measure of verified continuation capacity. Given a mirror state, a rollout protocol, a verifier, and a mode map, VPE decomposes bounded capability into two parts: the probability of reaching a viable continuation and the diversity of verified continuation modes reached among successful rollouts. This paper restores the full theoretical scaffold behind the measure: intuition as local underdetermining constraint, taste as invariant-selecting pressure, reflection as taste-guided resolution of underdetermination, and geometry as the learned structure that makes future reflection stable. We then instantiate the theory in language-model reasoning experiments on GSM8K. Across Qwen2.5-Instruct models, 32 sampled rollouts per problem, and two reflection horizons, increasing the token budget from 96 to 160 substantially expands verified reachability, reduces zero-reachability, increases verified-mode entropy, and improves smoothed VPE. At 160 tokens, Qwen2.5-1.5B realizes the strongest mirror horizon among the tested models, even though Qwen2.5-3B has more parameters. This shows that mirror horizon is not parameter count, but accessible verified continuation capacity under a bounded reflection protocol. The result supports Mirror Theory as a measure-level account: capability is the structure of viable continuations made reachable, not merely one-shot accuracy or pass@k.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become the standard paradigm for enhancing the complex reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). To achieve sample efficiency, modern RL frameworks rely on importance sampling (IS). However, these algorithms suffer from an exploration-stability dilemma. Pure IS often leads to catastrophic training instability, while standard clipping mechanisms used to mitigate this instability strictly constrain the policy update budget. By formalizing the concept of Probability Capacity (Cap), we reveal that conservative clipping structurally stifles exploration by prematurely truncating the update budget for correct but low-confidence reasoning paths. To break free from these constraints, we propose Unbounded Positive Asymmetric Optimization (UP), a universal and plug-and-play objective. UP theoretically restructures the optimization process by anchoring the policy to its current state via the stop-gradient operator. This asymmetric design unleashes unclipped, stable gradients for positive advantages to maximize exploration, while maintaining standard clipping safeguards for negative advantages to prevent training instability. Furthermore, our formulation readily extends across different optimization granularities, including token-level (GRPO, DAPO) and sequence-level (GSPO) frameworks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that UP enhances exploration capacity and achieves superior reasoning accuracy across diverse RL algorithms (DAPO, GSPO, and GRPO), model architectures (Dense, MoE, and vision-language), and training modalities (language and multimodal), validating UP as a truly universal plug-and-play enhancement for RL-based training.

Parallel thinking has enjoyed great success for boosting LLM performance on reasoning tasks without the need for any re-training. However, existing methods follow a think-first-then-decide paradigm, i.e., they first sample multiple reasoning paths, which inevitably leads to overgeneration, then prune or stop unnecessary paths to compensate. In contrast, decide-first-then-think, i.e., first identifying points that are likely to lead to desirable generations, has been underexplored so far. Following this paradigm, we propose Fork-think with confidence, that first identifies forking points using model confidence in a single seeding path, then triggers thinking, sampling multiple continuations and aggregating them for the final response. Our experiments across three models and three reasoning benchmarks show that Fork-think reduces the token consumption by up to 30% and run-time by up to 57%, while performing comparable to or better than parallel thinking. Our analysis reveals that Fork-think is able to identify forking points that are meaningful with respect to the downstream task and that sampling at later positions can lead to substantially better generations. Finally, we demonstrate how combining Fork-think with existing mechanisms such as early stopping and weighted voting can further boost the performance and perform comparably to existing state-of-the-art methods, without requiring any warm-up or offline training. Our results establish pre-determined forking as a promising research direction for efficient LLM reasoning.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often achieve high performance on benchmarks while remaining "black boxes", yet they remain prone to hallucination or rely on superficial shortcuts. In this work, we propose a framework designed to enhance both performance and interpretability through De-compositional Evidence Grounding. Unlike monolithic inference approaches, our approach forces the model to decompose a global query into a sequence of atomic sub-questions, each requiring an explicit sub-answer and critically a localized evidence bounding box. By grounding intermediate logical steps (e.g. identifying a container, analyzing liquid properties, and assessing environmental context) in specific visual regions, we construct a structured reasoning path that mirrors human-like deduction. This allows the final answer to emerge as a logical consequence of verified visual facts rather than a statistical guess.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for enhancing the capability of large reasoning models. RLVR typically samples responses independently and optimizes the policy using from final answers. This paradigm has two limitations. First, independently responses often contain similar intermediate reasoning steps, causing redundant exploration and wasted computation. Second, sparse final-answer rewards make it hard to identify useful steps. Tree-based methods partly address this problem by sharing prefixes and comparing branches from the same prefix to provide fine-grained signals. However, tree branches are still expanded independently. When different branches reach similar reasoning states, they cannot share information and repeat similar exploration. Moreover, tree-based methods ignore such dispersion and only perform local comparisons within separate branches, which can lead to higher variance in advantage estimation. To address this challenge, we propose GraphPO (Graph-based Policy Optimization), a novel RL framework that represents rollouts as a directed acyclic graph, with reasoning steps as edges and semantic states summarized from the reasoning paths as nodes. GraphPO merges semantically equivalent reasoning paths into equivalence classes, allowing them to share suffixes and reallocating budget away from redundant expansions to diverse exploration. Furthermore, we assign efficiency advantages to incoming edges and correctness advantages to outgoing edges, thereby improving inference efficiency while deriving process supervision from outcome. Theory shows that GraphPO reduces advantage-estimation variance and enhances reasoning efficiency. Experiments on three LLMs across reasoning and agentic search benchmarks show that GraphPO consistently outperforms chain- and tree-based baselines with the same token budgets or response budgets.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful post-training paradigm that surpasses Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) in eliciting reasoning intelligence and resisting catastrophic forgetting. Recent studies further reveal that RLVR induces highly sparse and off-principal parameter updates compared to SFT. This naturally raises the question: does such sparsity make RLVR models more amenable to model merging? If so, model merging would offer a scalable, training-free path to aggregate diverse reasoning capabilities from independently trained RLVR models. Surprisingly, we find the opposite, uncovering a sparsity curse: the sparse RLVR updates are spread farther apart in parameter space, forming near-orthogonal shortcuts that make aggregation inherently fragile. This is likely rooted in the stochasticity of RL optimization and the diversity of emergent reasoning patterns. Unlike SFT models that converge to shared, flat basins and merge naturally, RLVR models suffer severe degradation under standard merging methods. Through systematic empirical analysis of the update geometry, we characterize the mechanisms behind this failure and propose Sensitivity-aware Resolving Merging (SAR-Merging), a merging recipe tailored for the unique structure of RLVR parameter spaces. SAR-Merging resolves conflicts in overlapping update regions via Fisher Information-based sensitivity arbitration, followed by magnitude-aware sparsification and rescaling to preserve fragile reasoning pathways. Experiments on mathematical and coding benchmarks demonstrate that SAR-Merging substantially outperforms existing merging methods on RLVR models, enabling both single-task enhancement and multi-capability fusion.

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in video temporal grounding with reinforcement learning for generating reasoning paths. However, existing models often produce superficial reasoning, which offers limited guidance for precise temporal localization. This limitation stems from (1) inefficient random exploration and (2) reward functions that focus solely on the answer correctness while ignoring reasoning quality. To address these issues, we propose TaRO (Temporal-Aware Reasoning Optimization), a framework that explicitly enhances the model's ability of thinking with time. First, we introduce a Constructive Reasoning Exploration that leverages pre-generated dense captions to construct reasoning paths grounded in explicit visual cues and timestamps, enabling efficient exploration of high-quality time-aware reasoning. Second, to evaluate reasoning quality, we design a Temporal-Sensitivity Reward. High-quality reasoning should be anchored to specific events and timestamps. If the event boundary under thinking is disrupted, such reasoning should become invalid, leading to a drop in the logit of the reasoning path. We utilize this drop as a critique of reasoning quality. Finally, TaRO follows a progressive curriculum, which starts by utilizing this reward to select better constructed reasoning paths, and evolves to a free exploration phase where the model autonomously generates effective reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that TaRO achieves state-of-the-art performance on VTG benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/oceanflowlab/TaRO.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves large language model reasoning but often suffers from rapid policy-entropy collapse, where the policy prematurely concentrates on narrow high-probability reasoning paths. While global entropy regularization can encourage exploration, uniformly increasing entropy across all token positions is inefficient for long reasoning trajectories, where many tokens are not decision-relevant. We propose Position-Aware Entropy Calibration (PAEC), a token-level entropy-management framework that constructs a soft mask from local top-p entropy and top-two candidate competition, and applies an anchor-based lower-bound penalty to prevent selected-position entropy collapse. Experiments on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that PAEC improves macro-average majority-vote performance over strong RLVR baselines, with clear gains on AIME-style tasks. Our results suggest that entropy management in reasoning RL should be formulated as selective exploration allocation over decision-sensitive positions rather than uniform randomness injection.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning abilities on mathematical and multi-hop planning tasks. The CoCoNuT (Chain of Continuous Thought) paradigm~\cite{hao2024coconut} extends this by enabling models to reason in latent space, exploring multiple reasoning paths simultaneously rather than committing to a single chain early on. However, we identify a limitation we term the \textbf{concept bottleneck}. At each reasoning pass, intermediate hidden states are overwritten, causing the model to lose critical facts computed in earlier steps as reasoning depth increases. We observe this empirically. On HotpotQA, vanilla CoCoNuT (10.4% EM) fails to improve over the CoT baseline (11.0% EM), and performance degrades with curriculum depth on GSM8K. To address this, we propose \textbf{AGCLR} (Adaptive Gated Continuous Latent Reasoning), which augments CoCoNuT with a \textit{Gated Concept Stream}. A persistent residual memory maintained across all reasoning passes, controlled by three learned gates: a \textit{write} gate that commits intermediate facts to memory, a \textit{read} gate that retrieves relevant prior states, and a \textit{forget} gate that prunes irrelevant context. Evaluated on GSM8K, HotpotQA, and ProsQA using GPT-2 as our base model, AGCLR achieves consistent improvements across all types of datasets. With the performance gap compounding as curriculum depth increases, directly resolving the concept bottleneck. Code available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/JJJJ/README.md

Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer, but majority voting often fails to recover correct answers that are already present among the samples. We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem. Instead of relying on a single uncertainty or confidence signal, RISC uses a lightweight LambdaRank model to score candidate answers with five carefully designed features that capture answer frequency, semantic centrality, and reasoning-trace consistency. We evaluate RISC on three datasets under a range of test-time budgets. Across datasets, RISC consistently achieves a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off than standard self-consistency and strong baselines, with particularly large gains on question answering benchmarks. Further analysis shows that the proposed features are individually useful and, more importantly, complementary, highlighting the value of learning to combine multiple informative signals for test-time answer selection.

Endowing large language models with compositional reasoning over specialized documents requires multi-hop training data at scale, where such data rarely exists outside of curated benchmarks built on structured sources. To construct it directly from plain, unannotated text, existing methods ask a single teacher model to jointly discover an evidence path through a document and verbalize it as a question-answer pair. However, these methods degrade sharply when documents are structured around repetitive templates and densely cross-referencing clauses, conditions that characterize most real-world specialized corpora. In this work, we decouple the two operations: reasoning paths are enumerated offline over a graph of contextual keyword centroids, and the teacher is invoked only to verbalize pre-validated paths. The graph enforces five geometric admissibility constraints, for which we provide Gram-matrix arguments establishing that local similarity bounds alone admit endpoint drift up to ${\sim}91^{\circ}$, and that an upper similarity bound is necessary to exit dense embedding cliques formed by boilerplate text. A matched-size ablation isolates the mechanism: at equal training scale, constrained and unconstrained chains yield indistinguishable downstream performance, and the gain at full scale comes from a 4.4$\times$ expansion of the usable corpus rather than from higher per-chain quality -- reframing the role of graph constraints, in this setting, as raising teacher synthesizability rather than improving chain content. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B on 80K examples constructed from the CUAD legal contract corpus improves closed-book Token F1 from 21.66% to 38.58%. We have released our codes at https://github.com/hkgai-official/GCSCS.

Inference-time sampling can elicit strong reasoning abilities from language models without additional training. Existing power-sampling methods do so by sharpening the distribution over full generated outputs, favoring completions that are individually likely under the model. We argue that this is the wrong object to target for reasoning: a completion entangles a reasoning trace with a final answer, whereas what matters is whether an answer is supported by many plausible reasoning paths. We therefore shift the target from the full-output distribution to the sharpened answer marginal, making self-consistency an inference-time objective rather than a post-hoc voting criterion. Surprisingly, this marginal target admits an efficient approximation: we propose a simple, purely autoregressive parallel sampling algorithm that approximately samples from the sharpened answer marginal, eliciting stronger performance than standard power sampling on mathematics and coding benchmarks while being orders of magnitude faster.

Recent benchmarks reveal that despite strong reasoning capabilities, large language models (LLMs) still struggle to faithfully apply complex contextual knowledge. These failures are often not wholesale reasoning collapses: in context-rich tasks, models may follow the central reasoning path while missing peripheral, persistent, or format-sensitive requirements.

A common failure mode in long-horizon agentic test-time scaling is error propagation, where factual errors or invalid deductions introduced at intermediate steps persist in the agent's belief state and contaminate later reasoning. Existing test-time scaling methods provide limited control over this process, as they often rely on agents to detect their own mistakes, select among flawed trajectories, or refine solutions only after errors have already shaped the reasoning path. We propose ExComm, a communication protocol for exploration-stage agentic test-time scaling. ExComm is motivated by the empirical observation that the majority of intermediate errors in parallel agentic reasoning produce detectable cross-agent factual conflicts. Leveraging the iterative structure of agentic workflows, ExComm periodically audits agent belief states to detect such conflicts, resolves them through a dedicated tool-based verification loop, and returns concise, targeted feedback to the involved agents. Corrections are incorporated through soft belief updates, which append verified feedback rather than overwriting existing beliefs. Furthermore, to prevent collapsing trajectory diversity due to communication, ExComm further introduces a trajectory diversification module that redirects redundant trajectories toward orthogonal strategies. Experiments on AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and GAIA with Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite and Qwen3.5-4B show that ExComm consistently outperforms strong test-time scaling baselines, achieving average performance gains of 5.7% and 5.0% over the best-performing baselines, respectively. Further analyses demonstrate improved error recovery, favorable scaling behavior, stronger diversity than adapted communication baselines, and the best performance-cost trade-off among the evaluated methods.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) typically samples multiple responses per prompt and assigns binary rewards based on individual correctness, yet the collective structure of the group output, specifically the distribution of errors, is largely discarded. We identify this as a missed opportunity: empirical analysis reveals that error diversity within a group is a strong predictor of training success, with problems eliciting diverse wrong answers benefiting substantially more from RLVR than those producing homogeneous failures. Motivated by this observation, we propose Error Diversity Advantage Shaping (EDAS), a lightweight, algorithm-agnostic technique that modulates the advantage signal for incorrect rollouts based on intra-group error diversity. EDAS amplifies penalties for dominant, repeated errors and attenuates penalties for rare, exploratory ones, thereby encouraging the model to maintain diverse reasoning paths and discouraging error perseveration. Crucially, EDAS operates as a simple post-hoc adjustment that can be seamlessly integrated into any RLVR algorithm. We validate EDAS on top of several mainstream RLVR methods across a series of models and seven challenging math benchmarks, demonstrating consistent improvements. Notably, EDAS yields an average improvement of 6.29 points over DAPO on Qwen3-8B across seven benchmarks, confirming that exploiting the latent information in group rollouts is a broadly effective strategy for strengthening RLVR.

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 )

While AI-generated hallucinations pose considerable risks, the underlying cognitive mechanisms by which humans can successfully recognize or be misled by these hallucinations remain unclear. To address this problem, this paper explores humans' neural dynamics to characterize how the brain processes hallucinated content. We record EEG signals from 27 participants while they are performing a verification task to judge the correctness of image descriptions generated by a multi-modal large language model (MLLM). Based on an averaged event-related potential (ERP) study, we reveal that multiple cognitive processes, e.g., semantic integration, inferential processing, memory retrieval, and cognitive load, exhibit distinct patterns when humans process hallucinated versus non-hallucinated content. Notably, neural responses to hallucinations that were misjudged versus correctly judged by human participants showed significant differences. This indicates that misjudged AI-generated hallucinations failed to trigger the standard neurocognitive fact verification pathway.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in reasoning. However, maximizing their potential through inference-time scaling faces challenges in trade-off between sampling budget and reasoning quality. Current strategies remain inefficient as they typically treat sampling width and depth as orthogonal objectives, where width consensus methods risk reinforcing hallucinations, while depth pruning mechanisms prematurely truncate complex yet valid reasoning chains. Therefore, we propose Dual-Dimensional Consistency (DDC), a unified framework that bridges path quality with adaptive termination. By coupling Confidence-Weighted Bayesian protocol with a Trend-Aware Stratified Pruning, our method ensures that computational resources are concentrated on high quality reasoning paths, filtering hallucinations while accelerating consensus. Evaluations across five benchmarks demonstrate that this approach reduces token consumption by over 10 times while maintaining or exceeding the accuracy of strong baselines across various LLMs.

When distilling reasoning from large language models (LLMs) into smaller ones, teacher rationales for similar problems often vary wildly in structure and strategy. Like a chef who makes the same dish differently each time, this inconsistency burdens the student with noisy supervision that is hard to internalize. We propose Distillation through Reasoning Path Compression (D-RPC), which constrains the teacher to follow a compact, dynamically maintained bank of reusable high-level reasoning paths. For each training question, D-RPC retrieves the most relevant path and conditions the teacher to follow it, producing rationales that are consistent across similar problems yet diverse enough to cover different problem types. A PAC-Bayes analysis formalizes the resulting trade-off between bank size and coverage: smaller banks reduce supervision entropy but risk coverage gaps, and the generalization bound identifies an optimal intermediate size confirmed by our ablations. Across five math and commonsense reasoning benchmarks with two student models, D-RPC consistently outperforms chain-of-thought distillation, freeform rationale generation, direct distillation, and structured-supervision baselines, while using fewer tokens than template-heavy alternatives.

Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, particularly Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, in complex tasks, GRPO frequently suffers from the ``zero-advantage problem'': when all sampled rollouts for a query fail, the relative advantage collapses to zero. Consequently, the model loses effective training signals for these questions, wasting the training data and computational budget. While simply increasing the sampling budget for these questions is a common remedy, the static sampling policy inherently constrains reasoning exploration, limiting the success rate. In this paper, we propose Lorem Perturbation for Exploration (LoPE), a simple yet effective training framework to break this exploration bottleneck. We posit that task-irrelevant prompt-space perturbations can shift the model's output distribution enough to unlock orthogonal reasoning pathways for hard questions. Specifically, LoPE prepends sequences stochastically assembled from Lorem Ipsum vocabulary (a pseudo-Latin placeholder text) to the prompts before resampling. Experiments across 1.7B, 4B, and 7B models demonstrate that LoPE significantly outperforms resampling with the original prompts. Further analysis reveals that other Latin-based random sequences with low perplexity are also effective perturbations. Our results establish LoPE as a strong baseline for broadening exploration in LLM reinforcement learning.

Multi-hop Question Answering (MHQA) aims to answer questions that require multi-step reasoning. It presents two key challenges: generating correct reasoning paths in response to the complex user queries, and accurately retrieving essential knowledge in the face of potential limitations in large language models (LLMs). Existing approaches primarily rely on prompt-based methods to generate reasoning paths, which are further combined with traditional sparse or dense retrieval to produce the final answer. However, the generation of reasoning paths commonly lacks effective control over the generative process, thus leading the reasoning astray. Meanwhile, the retrieval methods over-rely on knowledge matching or similarity scores rather than evaluating the practical utility of the information, resulting in retrieving homogeneous or non-useful information. Therefore, we propose a Structured Entity-Aware Retrieval with Chain-of-Reasoning Navigator framework named SEARCH-R. Specifically, SEARCH-R trains an end-to-end reasoning path navigator, which is able to provide a powerful sub-question decomposer by fine-tuning the Llama3.1-8B model. Moreover, a novel dependency tree-based retrieval is designed to evaluate the informational contribution of the document quantitatively. Extensive experiments on three challenging multi-hop datasets validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework. The code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/ACL2026_SEARCH-R.

Large language model (LLM) agents often struggle in long-context interactions. As the agent accumulates more interaction history, context management approaches such as sliding window and prompt compression may omit earlier structured information that later steps rely on. Recent retrieval-based memory systems surface relevant content but still overlook the causal and logical structure needed for multi-step reasoning. We introduce ContextWeaver, a selective and dependency-structured memory framework that organizes an agent's interaction trace into a graph of reasoning steps and selects the relevant context for future actions. Unlike prior context management approaches, ContextWeaver supports: (1) dependency-based construction and traversal that link each step to the earlier steps it relies on; (2) compact dependency summarization that condenses root-to-step reasoning paths into reusable units; and (3) a lightweight validation layer that incorporates execution feedback. On the SWE-Bench Verified and Lite benchmarks, ContextWeaver improves performance over a sliding-window baseline in pass@1, while reducing reasoning steps and token usage. Our observations suggest that modeling logical dependencies provides a stable and scalable memory mechanism for LLM agents that use tools.

AI agents with advanced reasoning and tool-use capabilities have demonstrated impressive performance in web browsing for deep search. However, existing benchmarks such as BrowseComp primarily focus on textual content, overlooking the prevalence of multimodal content. To bridge this gap, we introduce MM-BrowseComp, a novel benchmark comprising 400 challenging, hand-crafted questions designed to evaluate multimodal retrieval and reasoning capabilities. Unlike prior work, MM-BrowseComp incorporates visual prompts and necessitates the extraction of key evidence from web images and videos to complete questions, rendering text-only approaches insufficient. Additionally, we provide a verified checklist for each question, enabling fine-grained analysis of multimodal dependencies and reasoning paths. Our comprehensive evaluation of 27 state-of-the-art models reveals that even leading models like GPT-5-High with tools achieve only 24.25% accuracy, highlighting the suboptimal multimodal browsing capabilities, establishing MM-BrowseComp as a rigorous new standard for the field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce plausible but poorly-calibrated answers, limiting their reliability on reasoning-intensive tasks. Recent research suggests that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning paths are inherent in pre-trained LLMs and can be elicited by simply altering the decoding process, where the presence of a CoT path correlates with higher answer confidence. Building on these insights, we present Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback (RLSF), a post-training stage that utilises the model's intrinsic confidence as a self-generated reward. By generating multiple CoT decoding beams from a frozen LLM, we compute the confidence of each final answer span and rank the resulting traces accordingly to create synthetic preferences. These preferences are subsequently utilised to fine-tune the policy through standard preference optimisation, requiring no human labels, gold answers, or externally curated rewards. RLSF simultaneously (i) refines the model's probability estimates--restoring well-behaved calibration--and (ii) strengthens step-by-step reasoning, yielding improved performance on arithmetic reasoning and multiple-choice question answering. By converting a model's own uncertainty into structured self-feedback, RLSF affirms reinforcement learning on intrinsic model behaviour as a principled and data-efficient component of the LLM post-training pipeline. Our results demonstrate that leveraging these inherent reasoning capabilities provides a robust path for enhancing model reliability without manual prompt engineering or external supervision.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in natural language processing. However, in knowledge graph question answering tasks (KGQA), there remains the issue of answering questions that require multi-hop reasoning. Existing methods rely on entity vector matching, but the purpose of the question is abstract and difficult to match with specific entities. As a result, it is difficult to establish reasoning paths to the purpose, which leads to information loss and redundancy. To address this issue, inspired by human reverse thinking, we propose Ontology-Guided Reverse Thinking (ORT), a novel framework that constructs reasoning paths from purposes back to conditions. ORT operates in three key phases: (1) using LLM to extract purpose labels and condition labels, (2) constructing label reasoning paths based on the KG ontology, and (3) using the label reasoning paths to guide knowledge retrieval. Experiments on the WebQSP and CWQ datasets show that ORT achieves state-of-the-art performance and significantly enhances the capability of LLMs for KGQA.