LLM Reasoning

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

While LLMs demonstrate impressive reasoning capabilities, they remain fragile in multi-step logical deduction, where a single transition error can propagate through the entire reasoning chain, leading to unstable performance. In this work, we identify logical connectives as primary points of this structural fragility. Through empirical analysis, we show that connective tokens function as high entropy forking points, at which models frequently struggle to determine the correct logical direction. Motivated by this observation, we hypothesize that intervening in logical connective selection can guide LLMs toward more correct logical direction, thereby improving the overall reasoning chain. To validate this hypothesis, we propose a multi-layered framework that intervenes specifically at these logic-critical junctions in the reasoning process. Our framework includes (1) Gradient-based Logical Steering to guide LLMs internal representations towards valid reasoning subspaces, (2) Localized Branching to resolve ambiguity via targeted look-ahead search, and (3) Targeted Transition Preference Optimization, a surgical reinforcement learning objective that selectively optimizes single-token preferences at logical pivots. Crucially, by concentrating intervention solely on logic-critical transitions, our framework achieves a favorable accuracy--efficiency trade-off compared to global inference time scaling methods like beam search and self-consistency.

Automatically filling Case Report Forms (CRFs) from clinical notes is challenging due to noisy language, strict output contracts, and the high cost of false positives. We describe our CL4Health 2026 submission for Dyspnea CRF filling (134 items) using a contract-driven two-stage design grounded in Schema-Guided Reasoning (SGR). The key task property is extreme sparsity: the majority of fields are unknown, and official scoring penalizes both empty values and unsupported predictions. We shift from a single-step "LLM predicts 134 fields" approach to a decomposition where (i) Stage 1 produces a stable SGR-style JSON summary with exactly 9 domain keys, and (ii) Stage 2 is a fully deterministic, 0-LLM compiler that parses the Stage 1 summary, canonicalizes item names, normalizes predictions to the official controlled vocabulary, applies evidence-gated false-positive filters, and expands the output into the required 134-item format. On the dev80 split, the best teacher configuration achieves macro-F1 0.6543 (EN) and 0.6905 (IT); on the hidden test200, the submitted English variant scores 0.63 on Codabench. The pipeline is language-agnostic: Italian results match or exceed English with no language-specific engineering.

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

Large language models perform well on many reasoning tasks, yet they often lack awareness of whether their current knowledge or reasoning state is complete. In non-interactive puzzle settings, the narrative is fixed and the underlying structure is hidden; once a model forms an early hypothesis under incomplete premises, it can propagate that error throughout the reasoning process, leading to unstable conclusions. To address this issue, we propose SABA, a reasoning framework that explicitly introduces self-awareness of missing premises before making the final decision. SABA formulates reasoning as a recursive process that alternates between structured state construction and obstacle resolution: it first applies Information Fusion to consolidate the narrative into a verifiable base state, and then uses Query-driven Structured Reasoning to identify and resolve missing or underspecified premises by turning them into queries and progressively completing the reasoning state through hypothesis construction and state refinement. Across multiple evaluation metrics, SABA achieves the best performance on all three difficulty splits of the non-interactive Detective Puzzle benchmark, and it also maintains leading results on multiple public benchmarks.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is an effective framework for aligning large language models with human preferences, but it struggles with complex reasoning tasks. DPO optimizes for the likelihood of generating preferred over dispreferred responses in their entirety and lacks the granularity to provide feedback on subsections of many-step solutions typical of reasoning tasks. Existing methods excel at either stable preference learning (e.g., DPO variants like KTO and RSO) or structured reasoning (e.g., ReMA's multi-agent RL framework, Tree of Thoughts), but fail to merge these complementary strengths. We propose HiPO (Hierarchical Preference Optimization), an extension of DPO that separates responses into reasoning segments (query clarification and context, reasoning steps, and answer) and computes loss as a weighted sum of the DPO loss for each segment. Our approach enables segment-specific training while maintaining DPO's computational efficiency and training stability. We demonstrate that for multiple 7B LLMs fine-tuned using HiPO and DPO on the Math Stack Exchange preference dataset, the models trained with HiPO outperform the others on a variety of common math benchmarks and achieve greater organization, logical flow, and consistency as measured by GPT-4.1.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their reliability in critical applications. Conformal Prediction (CP) addresses this by calibrating error rates on held-out data to provide statistically valid confidence guarantees. Recent work extends CP to LLM factuality to filter out risky claims, ensuring that hallucination rates remain below a user-specified level (e.g., 10%). While prior methods treat claims independently, Coherent Factuality extends to multi-step reasoning by representing outputs as dependency graphs and jointly validating claims with their logical ancestors. A key limitation is that Coherent Factuality is not differentiable, requiring hand-crafted scorers that at high reliability levels remove nearly 60% of true claims. We introduce Differentiable Coherent Factuality (DCF), a fully differentiable relaxation that enables learning improved scorers while provably recovering the original algorithm's guarantees. Experiments on two benchmark reasoning datasets demonstrate DCF achieves up to 141% improvement in claim retention while maintaining reliability guarantees, representing a significant step towards reliable conformal LLM systems.

Causal discovery through experimentation and intervention is fundamental to robust problem solving. It requires not just updating beliefs within a fixed framework but revising the hypothesis space itself, a capacity current AI agents lack when evidence demands representations they have not previously constructed. We extend the blicket detector paradigm from developmental science to test this capacity in AI agents equipped with architectural scaffolding that targets hypothesis-space restructuring. Our compositional architecture has two discrete components: context graphs, which structure exploration as typed state machines, and dynamic behaviors, which monitor for evidence that the current hypothesis space is inadequate and expand it at runtime. Across 1,085 experimental trials, these components make orthogonal contributions: context graphs drive reasoning quality within the post-switch hypothesis space, accounting for 94% of the accuracy gain, while dynamic behaviors drive reasoning eligibility by detecting regime changes and preventing premature commitment to outdated hypotheses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with multi-step logical reasoning. Existing approaches either purely refine the reasoning chain in natural language form or attach a symbolic solver as an external module. In this work, we instead ask whether LLMs contain a shared internal logical subspace that simultaneously aligns natural-language and symbolic-language views of the reasoning process. Our hypothesis is that this logical subspace captures logical reasoning capabilities in LLMs that are shared across views while remaining independent of surface forms. To verify this, we employ Canonical Correlation Analysis on the paired residual activations from natural-language and symbolic-language reasoning chains, learning a low-dimensional subspace with maximum cross-view correlation. Furthermore, we design a training-free approach that steers LLMs reasoning chain along this logical subspace, thereby leveraging the complementary reasoning signals from both views. Experiments on four logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, improving accuracy by up to 11 percentage points and generalizing well on out-of-domain problems.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved substantial advances in logical reasoning, yet they continue to lag behind human-level performance. In-context learning provides a viable solution that boosts the model's performance via prompting its input with expert-curated, in-domain exemplars. However, in many real-world, expertise-scarce domains, such as low-resource scientific disciplines, emerging biomedical subfields, or niche legal jurisdictions, such high-quality in-domain demonstrations are inherently limited or entirely unavailable, thereby constraining the general applicability of these approaches. To mitigate this limitation, recent efforts have explored the retrieval of cross-domain samples as surrogate in-context demonstrations. Nevertheless, the resulting gains remain modest. This is largely attributable to the pronounced domain shift between source and target distributions, which impedes the model's ability to effectively identify and exploit underlying shared structures or latent reasoning patterns. Consequently, when relying solely on raw textual prompting, LLMs struggle to abstract and transfer such cross-domain knowledge in a robust and systematic manner. To address these issues, we propose CoDA, which employs a lightweight adapter to directly intervene in the intermediate hidden states. By combining feature-based distillation of CoT-enriched reference representations with Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) for kernelized distribution matching, our method aligns the latent reasoning representation of the source and target domains. Extensive experimental results on multiple logical reasoning tasks across various model families validate the efficacy of CoDA by significantly outperforming the previous state-of-the-art baselines by a large margin.

Formal verification guarantees proof validity but not formalization faithfulness. For natural-language logical reasoning, where models construct axiom systems from scratch without library constraints, this gap between valid proofs and faithful translations is especially acute. We investigate whether frontier models exploit this gap when generating Lean 4 proofs, a behavior we term formalization gaming. We evaluate GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 on 303 first-order logic problems (203 from FOLIO, 100 from Multi-LogiEval), comparing unified generation against a two-stage pipeline that separates formalization from proving. Despite compilation rates of 87-99%, we find no evidence of systematic gaming in unified generation: models prefer reporting failure over forcing proofs, even under prompting designed to encourage it. However, unfaithfulness that evades our detection signals may still occur. The two-stage pipeline reveals two distinct modes of unfaithfulness: GPT-5 fabricates axioms during proof generation, a reactive fallback detectable via cross-stage comparison, while DeepSeek-R1 mistranslates premises during formalization, producing internally consistent outputs that evade detection entirely. These findings show that high compilation rates or accuracies should not be equated with faithful reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/koreankiwi99/formalization-gaming.

Thinking LLMs produce reasoning traces before answering. Prior activation steering work mainly targets on shaping these traces. It remains less understood how answer tokens actually read and integrate the reasoning to produce reliable outcomes. Focusing on quantitative reasoning, we analyze the answer-to-reasoning attention and observe a benign self-reading pattern aligned with correctness, characterized by a forward drift of the reading focus along the reasoning trace and a persistent concentration on key semantic anchors, whereas incorrect solutions exhibit diffuse and irregular attention pattern. We interpret this as internal certainty during answer decoding, where the model commits to a viable solution branch and integrates key evidence. Following this, we propose a training-free steering method driven by Self-Reading Quality (SRQ) scores combining geometric metrics for process control with semantic metrics for content monitoring. SRQ selects data to build steering vectors that guide inference toward benign self-reading and away from uncertain and disorganized reading. Experiments show that our method yields consistent accuracy gains.

Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought, paying heavily in latency, GPU time, and energy. Casual inspection of their traces reveals extensive reformulation, verification, and circular self-reflection, yet how much of this deliberation is actually necessary has never been measured at scale or explained from first principles. This paper closes both gaps. We formalise reasoning redundancy directly in terms of the reasoning model itself: the redundancy of a correct trace is the largest fraction of its trailing segmented steps that can be truncated while $π$, forced to terminate thinking and emit a final answer, still produces the correct answer. A large-scale quantification across four frontier reasoning models and two mathematical benchmarks shows that step-level redundancy is consistently high -- between 61% and 93% across the 8 (model, benchmark) conditions we study, with the median critical prefix equal to a single segmented step in six of the eight conditions -- that the finding is robust to the choice of judge family, and that although $ρ$ decreases with problem difficulty on MATH-500, all four models remain substantially redundant ($ρ\in [46\%, 85\%]$) even on the hardest Level-5 problems. We then prove that this redundancy is a structural consequence of length-agnostic outcome rewards, not a model-specific artefact: under any such reward, no finite expected stopping time is optimal. The result holds regardless of RL algorithm, base model, data distribution, or whether the policy is obtained via RL or distillation; over-thinking is therefore not a bug to be patched in individual models but a structural property of how current reasoning models are trained. Code: https://github.com/zhiyuanZhai20/how-much-thinking-is-enough

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

LLMs utilizing chain-of-thought reasoning often waste substantial compute by producing long, incorrect responses. Abstention can mitigate this by withholding outputs unlikely to be correct. While most abstention methods decide to withhold outputs before or after generation, dynamic mid-generation abstention considers early termination of unpromising reasoning traces at each token position. Prior work has explored empirical variants of this idea, but principled guidance for the abstention rule remains lacking. We present a formal analysis of dynamic abstention for LLMs, modeling abstention as an explicit action within a regularized reinforcement learning framework. An abstention reward parameter controls the trade-off between compute and information. We show that abstaining when the value function falls below this reward strictly outperforms natural baselines under general conditions. We further derive a principled and efficient method to approximate the value function. Empirical results on mathematical reasoning and toxicity avoidance tasks support our theory and demonstrate improved selective accuracy over existing methods.

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

Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for providing step-level feedback when evaluating the reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs), which frequently produce chains of thought (CoTs) containing errors even when the final answer is correct. However, existing PRM datasets remain expensive to construct, prone to annotation errors, and predominantly limited to the mathematical domain. This work introduces a novel and scalable approach to PRM dataset generation based on planning logical problems expressed in the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). Using this method, we generate a corpus of approximately one million reasoning steps across various PDDL domains and use it to train PRMs. Experimental results show that augmenting widely-used PRM training datasets with PDDL-derived data yields substantial improvements in both mathematical and non-mathematical reasoning, as demonstrated across multiple benchmarks. These findings indicate that planning problems constitute a scalable and effective resource for generating robust, precise, and fine-grained training data for PRMs, going beyond the classical mathematical sources that dominate this field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to logical hallucinations and stochastic drifts during long-chain reasoning. While Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG) can improve instruction adherence, standard static implementations often cause semantic dilution and linguistic degradation. We propose SPREG (Structured Plan-guided Real-time Entropy Gating), a lightweight inference-time framework for surgical error rectification. SPREG employs an adaptive dual-threshold mechanism to monitor real-time entropy, identifying sudden ``entropy spikes'' as reliable indicators of logical failure. Upon detection, it triggers a dynamic repair by replacing uninformative null-priors with reference distributions synthesized from historical high-confidence states. By modulating guidance intensity according to structured reasoning stages (e.g., Action, Observation), SPREG steers the model back to a stable manifold without compromising fluency. Our experiments demonstrate significant gains, notably a 20.0% absolute accuracy improvement on AIME25, while effectively suppressing uncontrolled entropy drift in complex tasks.

Many real-world questions appear deceptively simple yet implicitly demand two capabilities: (i) systematic coverage of a bounded knowledge universe and (ii) compositional set-based reasoning over that universe, a phenomenon we term "the tip of the iceberg." We formalize this challenge through two orthogonal dimensions: knowledge width, the cardinality of the required universe, and reasoning depth, the number of compositional set operations. We introduce KnowledgeBerg, a benchmark of 4,800 multiple-choice questions derived from 1,183 enumeration seeds spanning 10 domains and 17 languages, with universes grounded in authoritative sources to ensure reproducibility. Representative open-source LLMs demonstrate severe limitations, achieving only 5.26-36.88 F1 on universe enumeration and 16.00-44.19 accuracy on knowledge-grounded reasoning. Diagnostic analyses reveal three stages of failure: completeness, or missing knowledge; awareness, or failure to identify requirements; and application, or incorrect reasoning execution. This pattern persists across languages and model scales. Although test-time compute and retrieval augmentation yield measurable gains -- up to 4.35 and 3.78 points, respectively -- substantial gaps remain, exposing limitations in how current LLMs organize structured knowledge and execute compositional reasoning over bounded domains. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/2npc/KnowledgeBerg

Distractor generation (DG) remains a labor-intensive task that still significantly depends on domain experts. The task focuses on generating plausible yet incorrect options, known as distractors, for multiple-choice questions. A reliable distractor must be contextually relevant to the question and able to mislead examinees through implicit reasoning when identifying the correct answer. While a recent method integrates fine-tuning pre-trained encoder-decoder models with contrastive learning to generate semantically relevant distractors for a given question-answer, it often fails to capture the underlying reasoning process that experts utilize when selecting distractors in benchmarks. In this paper, we explore large language models (LLMs) reasoning for DG through in-context learning with unsupervised semantic retrieval for selecting few-shot examples. We design a rationale-augmented DG framework that jointly generates distractors and their rationales for a given question-answer. Extensive experiments on six benchmarks, with varying average distractor lengths and domains, demonstrate that prompting LLMs with few-shot examples substantially improves the performance compared to recent DG models. It outperforms recent approaches and achieves state-of-the-art results in generating reasoned distractors that align with human-labeled benchmarks.

Self-consistency (SC) is a popular technique for improving the reasoning accuracy of large language models by aggregating multiple sampled outputs, but it comes at a high computational cost due to extensive sampling. We introduce a hybrid ensembling approach that leverages the complementary strengths of two distinct modes of reasoning: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT). We describe a general framework for combining these two forms of reasoning in self-consistency, as well as particular strategies for both full sampling and early-stopping. We show that CoT-PoT ensembling not only improves overall accuracy, but also drastically reduces the number of samples required for SC by a factor of 9.3x. In particular, the majority of tasks (78.6%) can be addressed with only two samples, which has not been possible with any prior SC methods.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities, and as existing approaches for enhancing LLM reasoning continue to mature, increasing attention has shifted toward meta-reasoning as a promising direction for further improvement. However, most existing meta-reasoning methods remain episodic: they focus on executing complex meta-reasoning routines within individual instances, but ignore the accumulation of reusable meta-reasoning skills across instances, leading to recurring failure modes and repeatedly high metacognitive effort. In this paper, we introduce Metacognitive Consolidation, a novel framework in which a model consolidates metacognitive experience from past reasoning episodes into reusable knowledge that improves future meta-reasoning. We instantiate this framework by structuring instance-level problem solving into distinct roles for reasoning, monitoring, and control to generate rich, attributable meta-level traces. These traces are then consolidated through a hierarchical, multi-timescale update mechanism that gradually forms evolving meta-knowledge. Experimental results demonstrate consistent performance gains across benchmarks and backbone models, and show that performance improves as metacognitive experience accumulates over time.

Test-time scaling improves the reasoning performance of large language models but often results in token-inefficient overthinking, where models continue reasoning beyond what is necessary for a correct answer. Existing dynamic early-exit methods typically rely on single-step confidence signals, which are often unreliable for detecting reasoning convergence in multi-step settings. To mitigate this limitation, we propose TRACE, a training-free framework for efficient test-time scaling that determines when to terminate reasoning based on temporal aggregation of multi-step evidence rather than instantaneous signals. TRACE detects reasoning convergence over time by aggregating two complementary signals across recent reasoning steps: answer consistency, capturing the persistence of predicted answers, and confidence trajectory, modeling the temporal evolution of model confidence. Benefiting from these two factors, TRACE can accurately determine whether the reasoning process has converged, thereby promptly halting inference and effectively avoiding redundant reasoning steps. Extensive experiments on multiple challenging benchmarks show that TRACE reduces reasoning token usage by 25-30% on average while maintaining accuracy within 1-2% of full-length reasoning, consistently outperforming existing dynamic reasoning methods.

LLMs are widely used for code generation and mathematical reasoning tasks where they are required to generate structured output. They either need to reason about code, generate code for a given specification, or reason using programs of thought. The typical approach to code generation is to prompt the model and generate samples until an appropriate program is obtained. Within this process, sampling $n$ programs from the language model requires $n$ GPU compute-intensive generations which becomes prohibitively expensive for larger values of $n$. In this work, we address this limitation by exposing the LLM's distribution within the generated programs themselves. We propose a novel test-time framework we dub probabilistic programs of thought to obtain more samples from the model with fewer LLM generations. Given a program generated by a model and the associated next-token probabilities, we build a probabilistic program that compactly represents exponentially many deterministic programs. Since performing probabilistic reasoning in this probabilistic program is much cheaper, our approach allows sampling new programs without any additional GPU compute and little CPU overhead. We instantiate our approach on benchmarks for code generation, code understanding and mathematical reasoning and report improvements in performance with fewer generations from the LLM.

Evaluating animal welfare reasoning in LLMs remains an open challenge despite rapid deployment in consumer and professional contexts where welfare considerations appear implicitly in everyday queries. Existing benchmarks such as AnimalHarmBench evaluate this through single-turn, explicitly framed questions, measuring whether models avoid harmful content when directly asked. This approach overlooks two failure modes: alignment degradation under sustained adversarial pressure, and moral sensitivity (whether a model spontaneously surfaces welfare stakes in everyday queries). To fill this gap, we construct MANTA, a benchmark of 1,088 five-turn conversations progressing from an implicit Turn-1 scenario through an explicit welfare prompt to three adversarial pressure rounds drawn from a five-type taxonomy: Social, Cultural, Economic, Pragmatic, and Epistemic. We score conversations on two dimensions: Animal Welfare Value Stability (AWVS, primary) and Animal Welfare Moral Sensitivity (AWMS, diagnostic). We evaluate seven frontier models: Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, Llama 3.3 70B, Mistral Small, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. Multi-turn evaluation captures behavior single-turn benchmarks miss: 4 of 7 models change rank relative to Turn 1 scores, including Gemini Flash Lite, which drops from fifth on AWMS to last on AWVS. AWMS and AWVS are positively but imperfectly correlated, suggesting moral-recognition tests capture a stable but incomplete component of model behavior under pressure. MANTA also enables a species-by-pressure interaction matrix unavailable to prior benchmarks, showing welfare robustness depends jointly on the animal and pressure applied; companion animals score above wild animals, which score above farmed animals and invertebrates. We release the dataset, scripted pressure plans, judge prompts, and analysis code.

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

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are inclined explore Small Language Models (SLMs) as edge-native constitutional firewalls to vet proposals and mitigate semantic social engineering. While scaling inference-time compute (System 2) enhances formal logic, its efficacy in highly adversarial, cryptoeconomic governance environments remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce Sentinel-Bench, an 840-inference empirical framework executing a strict intra-model ablation on Qwen-3.5-9B. By toggling latent reasoning across frozen weights, we isolate the impact of inference-time compute against an adversarial Optimism DAO dataset. Our findings reveal a severe compute-accuracy inversion. The autoregressive baseline (System 1) achieved 100% adversarial robustness, 100% juridical consistency, and state finality in under 13 seconds. Conversely, System 2 reasoning introduced catastrophic instability, fundamentally driven by a 26.7% Reasoning Non-Convergence (cognitive collapse) rate. This collapse degraded trial-to-trial consensus stability to 72.6% and imposed a 17x latency overhead, introducing critical vulnerabilities to Governance Extractable Value (GEV) and hardware centralization. While rare (1.5% of adversarial trials), we empirically captured "Reasoning-Induced Sycophancy," where the model generated significantly longer internal monologues (averaging 25,750 characters) to rationalize failing the adversarial trap. We conclude that for edge-native SLMs operating under Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) constraints, System 1 parameterized intuition is structurally and economically superior to System 2 iterative deliberation for decentralized consensus. Code and Dataset: https://github.com/smarizvi110/sentinel-bench

Generative AI, particularly Large Language Models, increasingly integrates graph-based representations to enhance reasoning, retrieval, and structured decision-making. Despite rapid advances, there remains limited clarity regarding when, why, where, and what types of graph-LLM integrations are most appropriate across applications. This survey provides a concise, structured overview of the design choices underlying the integration of graphs with LLMs. We categorize existing methods based on their purpose (reasoning, retrieval, generation, recommendation), graph modality (knowledge graphs, scene graphs, interaction graphs, causal graphs, dependency graphs), and integration strategies (prompting, augmentation, training, or agent-based use). By mapping representative works across domains such as cybersecurity, healthcare, materials science, finance, robotics, and multimodal environments, we highlight the strengths, limitations, and best-fit scenarios for each technique. This survey aims to offer researchers a practical guide for selecting the most suitable graph-LLM approach depending on task requirements, data characteristics, and reasoning complexity.

Differential privacy (DP) has a wide range of applications for protecting data privacy, but designing and verifying DP algorithms requires expert-level reasoning, creating a high barrier for non-expert practitioners. Prior works either rely on specialized verification languages that demand substantial domain expertise or remain semi-automated and require human-in-the-loop guidance. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can automate DP reasoning. We introduce DPrivBench, a benchmark in which each instance asks whether a function or algorithm satisfies a stated DP guarantee under specified assumptions. The benchmark is carefully designed to cover a broad range of DP topics, span diverse difficulty levels, and resist shortcut reasoning through trivial pattern matching. Experiments show that while the strongest models handle textbook mechanisms well, all models struggle with advanced algorithms, revealing substantial gaps in current DP reasoning capabilities. Through further analytic study and failure-mode analysis, we identify several promising directions for improving automated DP reasoning. Our benchmark provides a solid foundation for developing and evaluating such methods, and complements existing benchmarks for mathematical reasoning.

Large language models exhibit systematic limitations in structured logical reasoning: they conflate hypothesis generation with verification, cannot distinguish conjecture from validated knowledge, and allow weak reasoning steps to propagate unchecked through inference chains. We present a symbolic reasoning scaffold that operationalizes Peirce's tripartite inference -- abduction, deduction, and induction -- as an explicit protocol for LLM-assisted reasoning. The framework enforces logical consistency through five algebraic invariants (the Gamma Quintet), the strongest of which -- the Weakest Link bound -- ensures that no conclusion in a reasoning chain can exceed the reliability of its least-supported premise. This principle, independently grounded as weakest link resolution in possibilistic logic and empirically validated for chain-of-thought reasoning, prevents logical inconsistencies from accumulating across multi-step inference. We verify all invariants through a property-based testing suite of 100 properties and 16 fuzz tests over 10^5+ generated cases, providing a verified reference implementation of the invariants suitable as a foundation for future reasoning benchmarks.