LLM Reasoning

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

Sphere neural networks have achieved symbolic level syllogistic reasoning without training data, raising the question of where the limit of the scaling law for logical reasoning lies, i.e., whether data-driven machine learning systems can achieve the same level by increasing training data and training time. We show two methodological limitations that prevent supervised deep learning from reaching the symbolic-level syllogistic reasoning: (1) training data can not distinguish all 24 types of valid syllogistic reasoning; (2) end-to-end mapping from premises to conclusion introduces contradictory training targets between neural components for pattern recognition and logical reasoning. Beside theoretical analysis, we experimentally illustrate that Euler Net cannot achieve rigorous syllogistic reasoning. We further challenge the most recent ChatGPTs (GPT-5-nano and GPT-5) to determine the satisfiability of syllogistic statements in four surface forms (patterns): words, double words, simple symbols, and long random symbols, showing that surface forms affect the reasoning performance and that ChatGPT GPT-5 may reach 100% accuracy but still provide incorrect explanations. As empirical training processes are stopped after achieving 100% accuracy, we conclude that supervised machine learning systems will not attain the rigour of symbolic logical reasoning.

Estimating token-level advantages in reinforcement learning (RL) for language models remains challenging because scaling up episodic experience collection is expensive. The difficulty intensifies for baseline advantage estimation methods, where repeated sampling causes trajectories to diverge into substantially different reasoning prefixes. In this context, RL algorithms such as GRPO prove limited: an outcome reward is too sparse to be attributed to specific actions like intermediate steps, and comparisons across sampled traces are non-trivial because they are heterogeneous. To mitigate both the computational cost of repeated sampling and the difficulty of credit assignment, we study single-rollout proximal policy optimization (SR-PPO) featuring token-level credit assignment in RL for language models. Instead of estimating advantages by normalizing episodic returns within the candidate group, we train a calibrated token-level credit critic using Monte Carlo outcomes from one rollout per prompt. Specifically, we use the critic to predict the Pass@k success probability at the prompt prefix, which is derived from a Pass@1 attempt. This choice yields a more selective learning signal than Pass@1: it discounts easily solved prefixes while prioritizing hard ones whose success probability remains marginal. We show that as $k$ increases, Pass@k converges to a reachability indicator, reflecting whether a prefix can lead to at least one successful continuation. In an explicit state graph, the limit ($k \rightarrow \infty$) can be computed in $O(|V|+|E|)$ time, offering a promising surrogate for direct credit assignment without the need to sample contrastive traces. As an initial validation, SR-PPO exhibits stable learning dynamics, along with consistent gains in Pass@128 success rates on mathematical reasoning benchmarks such as HMMT26 and AIME24.

Vision-language navigation (VLN) has recently advanced with large language and multimodal models, enabling agents to follow natural-language instructions in unseen environments without training a task-specific navigation policy. However, most existing VLN methods relying on large models still adopt an open-loop decision-execution approach, where candidate actions are generated from instructions and observations but are rarely verified or corrected before execution. This causes critical issues in aerial VLN, where minor errors in intermediate actions may quickly accumulate into large trajectory deviations and lead to target loss. To address this issue, we propose Closed-loop Self-verified Retrieval-augmented Reasoning (CLOSER), a training-policy-free method that sequentially performs action reasoning, reliability verification, targeted retrieval, and action correction in a closed-loop manner before executing concrete actions. We instantiate the CLOSER in aerial VLN tasks and develop a CLOSER-VLN framework, which is composed of three components: a hierarchical reasoner for generating candidate actions based on available information, a multidimensional action verifier for assessing the reliability of actions generated by the reasoner, and a verification-triggered multimodal retriever for retrieving targeted exemplars from a memory bank only when verification fails. We conduct experimental evaluations on the CityNav benchmark, where CLOSER-VLN achieves 32.01% SR and 21.28% SPL on the test-unseen split, confirming the effectiveness of closed-loop reasoning.

Test-time scaling improves language-model reasoning, but existing approaches often face a difficult trade-off: long chain-of-thought sampling remains single-threaded, while sentence- or solution-level search can be computationally expensive and hard to train end-to-end. We introduce Local Branch Routing (LBR), a token-level test-time scaling framework that expands a small local lookahead tree, forwards all sampled branches through the language model, and uses a lightweight router to select the depth-1 subtree to commit. By routing over the hidden states of candidate local futures, LBR allows each token decision to use evidence beyond the root next-token distribution while avoiding full solution-level search. The resulting prune-shift-grow decoding process preserves discrete branch identities and defines a tractable tree-trajectory likelihood: newly grown nodes are counted when first sampled, and router decisions are assigned explicit probabilities. This enables end-to-end reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, jointly optimizing the base model and router under the same likelihood-ratio principle as discrete-token RLVR. On synthetic hierarchical-planning tasks, LBR shows that post-candidate hidden states provide useful routing evidence. On mathematical reasoning benchmarks, LBR improves both Pass@1 and Pass@32 over discrete chain-of-thought, vanilla discrete-token RLVR, and RL-compatible soft-token branching baselines. These results suggest that lightweight local branching offers an efficient, trainable, and discrete form of language-model test-time scaling.

Accurate user modeling often depends on rich interaction histories, which are unavailable for billions of low-activity users. Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer latent user states from static profiles, but this reasoning becomes unreliable when profiles are sparse, and applying an LLM to billions of users is prohibitively expensive. We present ScaleToT, which learns structured reasoning from a small LLM-processed subset and extends it to the broader low-activity user population. To improve reasoning reliability, ScaleToT constructs typed user-state chains with a bounded entropy-guided Tree-of-Thought (ToT) refinement procedure. To make this structured reasoning usable from sparse profiles, the teacher-curated chains are used to train a student model on static profiles through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Outcome-Driven Segment-Aware Implicit Reward Policy Optimization (OSIPO). ScaleToT then transfers the student's reasoning representations to a lightweight profile encoder, providing shared reasoning signals for the remaining users without LLM inference. We evaluate ScaleToT on lifetime value (LTV) prediction in a billion-scale advertising deployment. A randomized online A/B test increased LT30 by 6.738%, while offline reasoning covered only 7.32% of the potential population, greatly reducing compute cost compared with full-population reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are traditionally viewed as autoregressive generators. However, from the perspective of collective computation, they function as high-dimensional Dense Associative Memories that store complex reasoning patterns as latent attractors. In this work, we investigate the energy landscape of mathematical reasoning. We posit that correct reasoning chains correspond to deep, wide attractor basins ("flat minima") in the model's output distribution, whereas hallucinations manifest as sharp, unstable local minima. To exploit this geometry, we introduce a retrieval mechanism based on a Gibbs measure of the trajectory's spectral entropy. By sampling multiple reasoning paths and weighting them by their inverse energy ($P \propto e^{-βE}$), we approximate the equilibrium distribution of the associative memory, effectively ``relaxing'' the system into a robust solution. Empirically, this physics-inspired mechanism improves Microsoft Phi-3.5 performance on GSM8K by 5.38% (84.7% $\to$ 90.1%), demonstrating that inference is better modeled as a dynamic settling process into an attractor basin rather than greedy next-token prediction.

We introduce Age of LLM, a turn-based 1v1 benchmark in which two LLMs face off on a 13x7 grid to destroy the enemy base. Three stressors are deliberate: fog of war, full diplomacy (messages, ceasefires, ultimatums; uranium kept secret), and a reliability dimension where every turn must follow a strict JSON schema and an illegal action is silently discarded. The engine is private and each match uses a fresh random map seed and opponent, mitigating the data contamination that affects public benchmarks. Models receive a (near) rule-only prompt with no build-order advice (two tactical seed phrases were present during data collection; see Section 2.7). We benchmark 15 reasoning models across 54 matches and 5,258 actions. Findings: (1) the nuclear rush dominates (78% on the rules-coherent v0.11+ sub-corpus; 85% corpus-wide) with a sole-launcher signature that is largely mechanical under secret-simultaneous launch rules, not a cognitive deterrence failure; (2) military conquest is rare but faster (12.3 vs 18.9 turns); (3) diplomacy is prolific yet almost never consummated; (4) ~58% of illegal actions are fog/state errors, making the illegal-action rate a measure of belief-tracking; (5) -- the least established, and the only one we label exploratory -- a weak link associates reliability with winning. The corpus is small, unbalanced and not side-swapped, so the ranking is a preliminary descriptive view, not a contribution. Beyond ranking, the turn-by-turn traces of actions and messages make the corpus a lens on how LLMs reason under adversarial uncertainty -- their belief-tracking, spontaneous deception, and per-model cognitive "personas" -- which we frame as a future research direction. We release the replay format, an isometric viewer and all replays; engine source on request.

Multi-step reasoning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains fragile: logical errors or hallucinations in early steps silently propagate, producing confident but incorrect conclusions. This paper presents VeryTrace, a zero-shot verification-and-repair framework that formalizes natural-language reasoning traces into a structured, compilable representation. VeryTrace introduces a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that (i) makes step dependencies explicit, (ii) mechanizes quantitative content as executable expressions, and (iii) structures semantic inferences via deduction schemas. Our hybrid verifier combines deterministic checks for computational correctness, dependency resolution, and constraint satisfaction with targeted LLM audits for non-mechanizable semantic judgments, enabling step-level error localization and repair. Across three diverse domains-competition mathematics (AIME 2025), robotics planning (LLM-BabyBench), and kinship reasoning (CLUTRR), VeryTrace improves accuracy over zero-shot baselines on state-of-the-art LLMs without requiring domain-specific training or in-context examples, demonstrating that formalized trace verification achieves both precision and generalization.

Distilling reasoning capabilities from strong to weak language models typically involves imitating specific solution trajectories, effectively transferring what to answer rather than how to reason. This trajectory-level imitation encourages memorization of instance-specific steps rather than acquisition of transferable problem-solving skills, limiting generalization to novel problems. We propose Strategy-Guided Policy Optimization (SGPO), which replaces instance-level trajectory imitation with reusable strategy distillation. SGPO extracts structured strategy descriptions from strong-model responses and, for each problem, constructs both autonomous and strategy-guided trajectories to enable direct comparison of the model's behavior with and without strategic guidance. The framework then addresses two key questions. For how to distill, a token-level forward-KL objective selectively transfers the distributional shift induced by strategy conditioning into the unguided policy, with proximal constraints ensuring stability. For when to distill, adaptive instance-level weighting strengthens guidance when autonomous exploration falls short and reduces it as the model's own competence grows. Experiments on four mathematical benchmarks across two model families show that SGPO consistently outperforms SFT, on-policy RL, and hybrid-policy baselines, improving the average score by 2.2 points over the strongest baseline on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. Analysis reveals that the forward-KL objective provides an inherently selective distillation signal that outperforms direct trajectory imitation, and that strategy distillation exhibits complementary scaling with base model capability.

Masked diffusion language models decode by iteratively unmasking tokens, where the unmasking order defines an "order of thought" that strongly influences generation quality yet is typically chosen heuristically. We derive a tractable upper bound on the sequential decoding mismatch, measured by the Kullback-Leibler divergence and expressed in terms of the model's pathwise log-likelihood, with tightness under sufficient model expressivity. This bound induces a dense self-aware reward over ordered trajectories, casting order selection as a principled policy optimization problem with a frozen denoiser. We instantiate this idea as Self-Aware Scheduling (SAS), which learns a lightweight order policy using Group Relative Policy Optimization and applies seamlessly to both any-order and semi-autoregressive decoding. On Sudoku with 1B MDM, SAS improves puzzle accuracy from 82.0% (best heuristic schedule) to 91.8%, and reaches 97.5% with second-stage fine-tuning along learned trajectories. On mathematical reasoning with LLaDA-8B, SAS improves pass@1 on GSM8K from 64% to 76% and on MBPP from 39.5% to 41%, consistently matching or exceeding heuristic schedules across generation lengths and block sizes. Project page: https://jimmyxu123.github.io/SAS

Logical reasoning is essential for reliable AI, yet existing benchmarks are largely first-order-logic-centric, focusing on object-level deduction over fixed predicates. This misses many realistic scenarios where models must reason over rules, predicates, functions, constraints, and decision procedures themselves. We introduce HOLMES (Higher-Order Logic Meets real-world Explainable Symbolic reasoning), the first real-world benchmark for higher-order symbolic reasoning in LLMs, containing 1379 instances. Built on higher-order logic, HOLMES pairs natural-language problems with HOL formalizations, ground-truth answers, verifiable reasoning traces, and fine-grained controllable reasoning factors across law and finance. Experiments show that current LLMs still struggle on HOLMES, with an average accuracy of only 50.64% and the best model reaching 59.54%. Our analyses further reveal that high final-answer accuracy can mask shortcut reasoning in conflict-resolution settings, while performance drops sharply under scope-conditioned and compositional reasoning. These findings identify higher-order symbolic reasoning as a key bottleneck for building reliable and verifiable LLMs. The project code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/wuyucheng2002/HOLMES.

On-policy distillation (OPD) improves LLM reasoning by training a student model on its own generated outputs, but standard OPD treats all student-generated outputs (SGOs) equally regardless of their informativeness. We observe a consistent asymmetry in controlled filtering experiments: in both OPD and on-policy self distillation (OPSD), training only on incorrect SGOs outperforms training only on correct ones. Our further analysis suggests that models trained on correct-only SGOs tend to generate shorter reasoning traces and show weaker reflection behavior, while incorrect SGOs better preserve exploratory reasoning near the model's capability boundary. To exploit this signal without requiring full answer-containing rollouts, we introduce ReNIO, which Reweights Negative trajectory Importance for LLM On-policy distillation. By using the student-to-teacher probability ratio, ReNIO identifies pivotal tokens leading to wrong reasoning traces and aggregates their information into a normalized sample weight, inherently assigning larger weights to likely negative trajectories without observing the correctness of final-answer. Since Re-NIO only uses prefix-conditioned token probabilities, it preserves OPD's prefix training advantage over full-rollout reinforcement learning. Across both mathematical reasoning and code generation tasks, ReNIO improves both OPD and OPSD, with representative relative gains of up to 8.90% for Qwen3-1.7B and 10.00% for R1-Distill-Qwen-7B on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Code repo: https://github.com/BDML-lab/ReNIO.

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

On-policy distillation transfers reasoning ability through dense token-level supervision, yet the nature of the transferable signal remains unclear. We discover that reasoning chains contain two types of knowledge that require different discovery mechanisms: decisions (where to branch), which surface through student uncertainty, and evidence (intermediate steps that justify decisions), which hides in positions where the student is confident yet wrong. Current methods capture only decisions; the substantive knowledge in evidence tokens remains untransferred. We propose DEAR(Decision-Evidence Aware Reasoning Distillation), which first identifies decisions via student entropy, then discovers their supporting evidence through hidden-state cosine similarity to decision anchors, boosted by teacher-student divergence to prioritize the largest knowledge gaps. Across three student-teacher configurations on math and code benchmarks, DEAR consistently outperforms standard OPD, with up to +2.5pp on competition math and +5.7pp on code generation.

Autoregressive generation in large language models (LLMs) conventionally decodes from the final layer, assuming that deeper representations yield more reliable next-token predictions. We revisit this assumption by revealing a recurring Guess-Refine-Perturb dynamic: early layers form coarse guesses, intermediate layers refine reasoning-relevant semantics, and final layers can perturb these refined predictions toward generic or alignment-preferred tokens. We introduce Confident Decoding, a training-free decoding strategy that dynamically selects the most reliable near-final layer through entropy-guided conservative backward search. We further provide a theoretical formulation of layer selection as an optimal stopping problem, showing that under bounded projection noise and dominant late-stage alignment perturbation, our search rule filters perturbation while bounding the loss relative to the oracle refinement layer. Experiments across dense and Mixture-of-Experts LLMs demonstrate consistent gains on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including GPQA-Diamond, Omni-MATH, and HLE, with zero memory overhead and less than 2% latency increase. These results suggest dynamically bypassing final-layer perturbations can unlock stronger reasoning behavior from aligned LLMs.

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.

Much work on the cognitive foundations of AI has focussed on comparisons between the ways in which Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans process information and represent it. One aspect of this comparison involves determining the extent to which LLMs can achieve or surpass human performance on a variety of cognitively interesting tasks. A second explores points of convergence and divergence between LLM and human systems for processing information. Here, I consider some recent research that has addressed both issues in two informational domains. The first is the representation of linguistic knowledge. The second is real world reasoning and planning. While LLMs frequently achieve impressive levels of performance and fluency on linguistic applications, they tend to handle linguistic content in ways that are distinct from human processing. They are also, for the most part, less efficient than humans in learning and generalisation for reasoning tasks.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become the dominant paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models, but it requires expensive training, curated data, and reward signals. Recent work shows that sampling from sharpened base-model distributions at test time recovers much of the RL gain, yet existing methods rely solely on output-layer likelihoods and ignore the transformer's internal forward-pass dynamics. We introduce Depth-Entropy Guided Sampling (DEGS), a training-free, test-time method that exploits layer-wise entropy collapse as an intrinsic quality signal. We observe that stronger reasoners -- including RL-posttrained variants -- exhibit a distinctive "late collapse": logit-lens decoded entropy stays elevated until deeper layers before converging. We define a per-sequence collapse depth $D(\mathbf{x})$ and a joint objective $π(\mathbf{x}) \propto p(\mathbf{x})^α\exp(βD(\mathbf{x}))$ that combines sequence likelihood with this depth-entropy structure, instantiated inside an MCMC power-sampling framework (DEGS-MCMC). Across three open-weight models and four reasoning benchmarks, this near-chance per-candidate signal compounds over the sampling trajectory into state-of-the-art training-free accuracy, with gains largest out of domain and on the harder splits -- exactly where likelihood alone falls short -- at single-digit-percent wall-clock overhead. DEGS narrowly trails an in-house GRPO reference on the math splits GRPO was trained for, yet surpasses it out of domain on GPQA for all three models, without any training, reward model, or labeled data.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score $c(\varphi) = p(\varphi) + p(\lnot\varphi)$ quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction ($\mathbb{E}[v_{\mathrm{neg}}]{=}0.025$) but only $7.4\%$ coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches $79.4\%$ coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 ($ρ{=}0.97$). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in reasoning, particularly in deductive reasoning, which is crucial for high-stakes decision-making. As models improve, evaluation benchmarks should evolve to keep pace. However, existing benchmarks lack fine-grained control over logical complexity and struggle to balance semantic diversity with logical consistency. To address these issues, we propose QMFOL, an automated framework for generating monadic first-order logic reasoning tasks with quantifiable and controllable complexity. It constructs formal logical structures using conjunction and disjunction patterns, enabling precise control over reasoning depth, width, label types, and distractors. These structures are then translated into natural language via LLMs, with logical consistency ensured through round-trip verification using an external prover. Based on our framework, we build QMFOLBench, a benchmark comprising 2880 instances with 960 configurations across diverse logical and semantic dimensions. Evaluations on six large reasoning models (LRMs) and two LLMs show that performance degrades and computational overhead increases with rising logical complexity. Models perform better on True-labeled tasks than on False or Unknown ones, and exhibit sensitivity to semantic variation. Overall, QMFOL offers a scalable and reliable approach for constructing deductive reasoning benchmarks with controllable complexity, enabling more precise evaluation of reasoning capabilities in modern language models.

In multimodal video reasoning, reinforcement learning-based methods typically rely on simplistic and inflexible reasoning-length control strategies that fail to adapt to the model's evolving competence. This mismatch may suppress necessary exploration at early stages, while encouraging redundant reasoning and inefficient decoding once the model becomes more competent. In this paper, we propose CARE, a competence-aware reward shaping framework for adaptive reasoning length optimization in multimodal reasoning. Specifically, CARE maintains a smoothed competence estimate via an exponential moving average of pass rates, and uses it to route training into progressive stages that shift the reward preference from exploration-oriented long-form reasoning to efficiency-oriented concise reasoning. To avoid conflating verbosity with intrinsic task complexity, CARE further normalizes reasoning effort with batch-level statistics, and introduces a posterior amplifier to strengthen reward signals for unexpectedly strong performance on historically difficult samples. The proposed mechanism is seamlessly integrated into the GRPO training pipeline and incurs no additional inference-time overhead. Extensive experiments on multiple video reasoning and general video understanding benchmarks demonstrate that CARE consistently improves reasoning accuracy, stabilizes reinforcement learning, and significantly enhances token efficiency. Moreover, CARE exhibits a characteristic inverted-U trajectory of reasoning length during training, and yields shorter yet more informative reasoning traces at convergence, indicating effective adaptive allocation of reasoning budget. We provide the source code for our proposed CARE framework and experiments at https://github.com/1Pansy/Video-CARE.

We present CombEval, a dynamic benchmark for evaluating combinatorial counting in large language models. CombEval represents each problem as a typed Cofola specification over entities, combinatorial objects, object dependencies, and constraints, enabling controlled generation of natural-language counting problems with exact solver-verified answers. Unlike static collections, CombEval supports systematic variation of object type, entity scale, constraint count, and reasoning depth. We evaluate 11 LLMs under direct and code-augmented settings and find that models remain brittle on ordered objects, indistinguishable elements, relatively positional constraints, and nested object dependencies. Error analysis further identifies failures in constraint interpretation and counting principles. CombEval provides a diagnostic testbed for studying when and why LLMs fail at combinatorial reasoning. The code and generated benchmark suites are publicly available at https://github.com/YuxuZhou-CN/combination-problem-generation.

Formal tools such as SAT and SMT solvers are increasingly embedded in language model reasoning pipelines when a safety or security critical question can be formulated in logic. Unlike chain of thought whose steps are sampled from the model distribution without formal guarantee, a solver produces a sound and independently verifiable answer. However, the soundness guarantee can be lost in the interaction between the solver and the model. The hybrid pipeline has three components: formalizing the question, deciding it, and narrating the result. Prior work has studied the formalization and decision, but not narration, which is the step that turns a formal tool's output into the user answer. To fill the narration gap, we first model the LLM-solver loop as a verified decision procedure. We further evaluate five open-sourced models under prompt injection, and we find certificate gating makes the solver verdict sound, while an adversary can invert a verified conclusion across phrasings and channels. We study the mitigation through hardened prompt that reduces injection significantly but cannot eliminate it and still suffers under adaptive attack. Combining the formal analysis and empirical studies, we show in the LLM-solver loop, robustness does not reach to the answer that the user finally reads.

Self-distillation improves reasoning in large language models by using the model's own rollouts as training signal, typically through implicit logit-level alignment that minimizes KL divergence toward a privileged target distribution. However, because this supervision is generated via uncontrolled sampling, it provides no diagnostic insight into the model's specific errors or corrective guidance for its individual failure patterns. Consequently, the model learns to imitate a privileged distribution rather than receiving fine-grained corrections that pinpoint where and why its reasoning fails. In this paper, we propose Trajectory-Augmented Policy Optimization (TAPO), which advances self-distillation from implicit distributional alignment to explicit trajectory construction. During RL training, the model produces both correct and incorrect rollouts to the same query, and TAPO leverages this contrastive structure to construct micro-reflective corrections, new training trajectories that retain the model's erroneous reasoning up to the point of failure, then insert a natural-language diagnosis and corrected reasoning guided by a correct reference from the same sampling group. Since each trajectory is anchored in the learner's own prefix and solutions, the corrective signal preserves the model's on-policy distribution to a greater extent than the position-wise alignment imposed by KL-based methods. To integrate these trajectories, TAPO introduces difficulty-aware candidate selection at the model's capability boundary and decoupled advantage estimation to prevent gradient contamination. Experiments on AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and HMMT 2025 show that TAPO achieves consistent improvements over GRPO under the same number of training steps. Further analysis demonstrates that TAPO strengthens both first-pass reasoning and error-correction effectiveness.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit substantial cross-lingual variation in mathematical reasoning performance, but it remains unclear whether these differences reflect language-specific parameters or a shared mechanism that manifests differently by language. We present a cross-lingual mechanistic analysis of mathematical reasoning in LLMs, enabling us to localize and compare model parameters that support mathematical reasoning across languages. We find that the extracted math-associated parameters exhibit partial cross-lingual overlap, with the strongest overlap concentrated in intermediate model layers. We further observe that English consistently produces the largest set of math-relevant parameters, whereas lower-resource languages reveal smaller sets of relevant parameters. These results suggest that math-related behavior in multilingual LLMs is neither fully language-invariant nor fully language-specific, but instead exhibits partial cross-lingual parameter overlap with systematic language-dependent differences.

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) has proven effective for post-training large language models (LLMs), yet its application to diffusion LLMs (dLLMs) remains unexplored. Existing OPSD methods are inherently autoregressive-centric. They inject privileged information via left-to-right prefix conditioning with token-level divergence supervision, a design that fundamentally conflicts with the arbitraryorder generation of dLLMs. We introduce d-OPSD, the first OPSD framework tailored for dLLMs. Our approach makes two core contributions. First, we reframe self-teacher construction by using self-generated answers as suffix conditioning, enabling the student model to learn from "self future-experience" rather than privileged prefixes. Second, we shift supervision from token-level to step-level, aligning training with the iterative denoising process of dLLMs. Experiments across four reasoning benchmarks show that d-OPSD consistently outperforms RLVR and SFT baselines with superior sample efficiency, requiring only around 10% of the optimization steps by RLVR and opening a promising pathway for dLLM posttraining. The code is available at https://github.com/xingzhejun/d-OPSD.

Large language models provide a tractable system for asking how intelligence itself emerges, rather than only how LLMs can be engineered. Although progress is usually attributed to scale, data and architecture, we show that parameter initialization is a gene-like determinant of training and, in particular, of model capacity. Reducing the initialization scale consistently improves pretraining, with the largest gains on reasoning-demanding tasks. We identify two widely used empirical settings that restrain the advantage of small initialization, and show how relaxing them restores favorable scaling. We further uncover a critical initialization that balances the reasoning and training. Mechanistically, small initialization drives a distinct developmental trajectory: parameters first condense into low-complexity structures and later expand into richer representations, giving concrete form to the idea that compression is intelligence. Token-level analyses show that the gains concentrate on non-trivial, context-constrained predictions rather than all tokens uniformly. These results motivate a simple $γ$-initialization rule: expose initialization rage as an explicit knob and use small initialization by default, an almost cost-free intervention that improves pretraining and strengthens reasoning across model scales.

Large language models perform increasingly well on standardized logical reasoning benchmarks, but whether this ability remains robust beyond English is unclear. We introduce ChLogic, an English--Chinese aligned benchmark that tests whether models preserve logical reasoning performance when the same latent logical structure is expressed in English and diverse Chinese surface realizations. Built from formal logical templates, the benchmark contains three data sets: (i) the General aligned set, derived from 60 General Propositions across nine template families; (ii) the Difficult aligned set, derived from 40 Difficult Problems; and (iii) the Chinese-only set, covering 15 language-specific phenomenon types. Each aligned item pairs one English reference expression with five Chinese realizations. Experiments on Qwen3, Ministral, and GLM models reveal a persistent English--Chinese performance gap. Back-translation from standard Chinese into English often improves performance on the General aligned set, but produces mixed effects on the Difficult aligned set, where Qwen3-32B and GLM-5.1 perform worse after translation. These results indicate that Chinese surface realization, translation artifacts, and model-specific behavior jointly affect multilingual logical reasoning. Overall, ChLogic provides a useful stress test for the robustness of multilingual reasoning.