Reasoning Diversity

Verified solutions are not equally useful for preparing reasoning models for reinforcement learning (RL). We present a comprehensive study of route diversity, the variation in the sequences of reasoning steps in supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data, and propose a lightweight, rule-based fingerprint to select for it. From one pool at one budget, with matched training recipes and checkpoints, selecting diverse rather than similar routes improves post-RL problem coverage across puzzles and mathematics, including on problems harder than those seen in either training stage. In synthetic experiments, route-diverse SFT improves OLMo3-7B's pass@8 by 16.9 points on environments held out from SFT. In a single-model condition, where one model writes every candidate, diverse selection gains up to 6.2 points of mean pass@8 across 10 mathematics benchmarks. Pre-RL diagnostics suggest why: diverse SFT can produce both successful and failed attempts on more prompts despite slightly lower mean accuracy, giving group-relative RL more prompts with a learning signal. On 3 open-source corpora, our CPU-only selector, without model calls, outperforms more expensive alternatives in every comparison of mean post-RL performance. These results identify reasoning-route diversity as a practical criterion for selecting SFT data that better prepares models for RL.

Inference-time search with large language models (LLMs) often concentrates on a small set of structurally or semantically similar trajectories, leaving alternative reasoning strategies underexplored---a failure mode we call \textit{reasoning basin collapse}. We introduce \textsc{BASIN}, a training-free, history-biased search method that groups reasoning states into basins and accumulates a revisit penalty on repeatedly selected basins, reallocating a fixed inference budget toward underexplored reasoning strategies. Under matched inference budgets, \textsc{BASIN} improves over Tree of Thoughts (ToT) by up to $+22$pp on Game of 24 and $+6.7$pp on MuSR. Because indiscriminate diversification can over-explore once search has found a promising basin, we further introduce \textsc{QA-BASIN}, a quality-aware variant that weakens the revisit penalty for high-quality basins and yields more robust gains. To characterize when basin-aware search helps, we introduce the \emph{redundancy gap} $Δ$, which measures the difference in search concentration between correct and incorrect predictions: standard ToT often operates near $Δ\approx 0$, whereas \textsc{BASIN} consistently shifts $Δ$ positive. Together, these results identify reasoning basin collapse as a failure mode of inference-time search and show that history-dependent bias provides a simple, training-free mechanism for escaping redundant reasoning under fixed compute. Code is available at https://github.com/GitHubLuCheng/basin

Creative generation tasks, such as narrative writing and scientific ideation, demand both high-quality outputs and distinct responses across independent runs to maximize exploration. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has shown strong quality gains on factual and reasoning tasks, making it a natural candidate for creative generation. However, we find its convergence-driven design actively suppresses output diversity across independent runs, creating an inherent trade-off with creative tasks. We theoretically show that preserving diversity among agents within each debate session is a necessary condition for achieving diverse outputs across independent runs. Building on this finding, we propose Creative-MAD, which introduces two synergistic interventions to sustain agent divergence. Specifically, Cognitive Lens Assignment counters identity drift by anchoring each agent to a distinct and persistent cognitive mode, while Embedding-based Peer Selection counters majority pull by limiting each agent's context to its most semantically distant peers. Experiments across four creative benchmarks demonstrate that Creative-MAD significantly enhances both lexical and semantic diversity while maintaining MAD's output quality.

Although reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the performance of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of reasoning tasks, there is significant debate as to whether RLVR expands the reasoning capability boundary, or just improves sampling efficiency. In this paper, we investigate the nature of test-time exploration in RLVR-trained LLMs by employing controlled maze-solving experiments and extracting a tree structure from mathematical reasoning traces (BODHI-Trees) based on semantic equivalence. This helps us delineate between entropy arising from stylistic variations and genuine inferential branching. Our findings demonstrate that the policy entropy collapse observed in RLVR models is not merely syntactic, and is accompanied by a significant reduction in semantic branching entropy. While RLVR improves adherence to environmental constraints and backtracking capabilities, it constricts the space of continuations; we provide evidence suggesting that this might be responsible for the sample efficiency gains of RLVR, albeit at the cost of genuine rollout diversity.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has become a standard reinforcement learning method for post-training language models. Recent work shows that GRPO can reduce the base model's reasoning capacity and underperform it in Pass@k when k is large, indicating reduced coverage of reasoning paths. We find that this reduction is associated with GRPO concentrating on responses that the base model already generates with high probability. We trace this concentration to two mechanisms in the GRPO update. At the response level, high-probability responses dominate the group gradient through repeated occurrence. At the token level, GRPO's importance ratio scales gradients, further reinforcing tokens that become more likely under the current policy. We propose ReCo, a reweighting method that addresses both effects. Response contributions are normalized by their expected occurrence within the rollout group, and the token-level importance ratio is replaced with a variance-based ratio that gives larger update scale to non-saturated decision points where alternative token choices remain plausible. Across Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B/7B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, ReCo improves Pass@k for large values of k and is comparable to GRPO for small values of k.

Diversity in LLM mathematical reasoning is critical for exploration, but common diversity metrics mostly capture surface-level variation rather than differences in how a problem is solved. We address this gap by introducing approach-level diversity: variation in strategies across correct solutions to the same problem. Using a human-calibrated LLM judge framework, we show that prior diversity measures are unreliable proxies for approach-level diversity, and this mismatch carries over to diversity-aware RLVR, where target metrics are preserved while approach-level diversity declines. Investigating when approach-level diversity helps and whether it can be directly induced, we find that approach-diverse candidate sets improve test-time scaling. However, optimizing an LLM judge diversity reward during training causes the policy to exploit judge-specific preferences rather than broaden its approaches, leaving direct optimization of approach-level diversity as an open problem. Together, our work introduces the notion of approach-level diversity and uncovers a systematic divergence between surface- and approach-level signals, marking a step toward LLMs that reason in genuinely diverse, human-like ways.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a key approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models. However, RLVR often suffers from \emph{diversity collapse}: Pass@$1$ improves while high-$k$ Pass@$k$ degrades, which is viewed as a narrowing of the model's reasoning boundary. We formalize this diversity collapse through the lens of \emph{overtraining}: once a problem's contribution to the reference metric has effectively saturated, further updates no longer expand what the model can solve but still concentrate probability mass on the trajectories favored by on-policy sampling. Under a standard setup with few rollouts per problem, even a single observed success places a problem in a nearly saturated regime for high-$k$ Pass@$k$, so most updates in standard RLVR are overtraining from the boundary perspective. This perspective also suggests a reading of whether RLVR can expand the model's reasoning abilities beyond the base model: since RLVR is structurally biased against high-$k$ Pass@$k$, its aggregate decline does not by itself mean that no new reasoning gains occurred. Interventionally, restricting updates to problems with zero observed success lifts Pass@$256$ above the base model on difficult benchmarks; observationally, a non-trivial fraction of initially unsolvable problems become solvable during standard RLVR training. Building on these findings, we propose \emph{Bayesian Boundary Gating} (BBG), which redirects optimization away from overtraining by estimating each problem's marginal contribution to the reasoning boundary. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, BBG improves average Pass@$k$ across a wide range of $k$.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted increasing attention for their ability to solve complex mathematical problems by generating extended reasoning chains. In this work, we focus on two critical yet underexplored aspects of the reasoning process: reasoning transitions capturing the distinct transitions between reasoning steps and answer candidates reflecting the variety of solution paths produced by the model. We collectively define these two aspects as thinking schemata. We observe a correlation between the diversity of thinking schemata and model performance, which motivates us to enhance diversity as a means to further improve reasoning potential. To this end, we propose Diverse Schemata Policy Optimization (DiScO), a framework that first endows the model with schemata awareness, then encourages diversity through reinforcement learning, and further promotes diverse reasoning at inference time. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that DiScO consistently outperforms standard group relative policy optimization. Beyond accuracy, human-annotated analyses show that DiScO substantially improves the model's ability to recover from erroneous initial attempts. Overall, our work suggests the important role that diversity of the thinking schemata plays and points to scaling along the diversity dimension as a promising research direction.

Recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased impressive reasoning capabilities, with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) being a promising enhancement strategy. However, existing reward mechanisms are constrained to the outcome-level correctness and lack explicit signals to guide the model to consider diverse solutions. In contrast, human problem solving typically involves evaluating multiple potential approaches and selecting the most reliable solution, a cognitive process that current RLVR frameworks do not explicitly incentivize. Inspired by this, we propose Hint-Guided Diversified Policy Optimization (HDPO), allowing the model to first list all potential candidate solution outlines as hints and then select the most reliable one for further reasoning. HDPO comprises two stages of Cold Start for Structured Reasoning and Hint-Guided Diversified Reinforcement Learning to incentivize the model to generate diverse and reliable solutions following the ``propose-select-think'' trajectory. Experimental results show that HDPO effectively boosts LLM reasoning and enhances the diversity of candidate solutions as well as the LLM's ability to identify reliable solutions.

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 )

Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics is defined by the notion of extensions, which are sets of arguments that satisfy particular relationship conditions in the AF. Usually, standard reasoning in argumentation do not reveal how far apart extensions are. We introduce a quantitative notion of diversity of extensions based on the symmetric difference and provide a systematic complexity classification. Intuitively, diversity captures whether extensions of a framework (accepted viewpoints) differ only marginally or represent fundamentally incompatible sets of arguments. We study whether an AF admits k-diverse extensions, admits k-diverse extensions covering specific arguments, and to compute the largest k for which an AF admits k-diverse extensions. We outline a prototype and provide an evaluation for computing diversity levels.

Large language models now achieve high final-answer accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, but accuracy alone does not capture reasoning flexibility. We introduce a strategy-level evaluation framework instantiated on 80 AMC 10/12 and AIME problems with 217 AoPS-derived reference strategy families. Model outputs are annotated for strategy identity, validity, and correctness using dual-AI coding with human adjudication. Across four frontier models, we find a pronounced decoupling between answer accuracy and strategy diversity. Under a single-solution prompt, all models achieve high accuracy (95%-100%), but under a multiple-strategy prompt they recover substantially fewer strategies than the human reference set. Gemini, DeepSeek, GPT, and Claude generate 184, 152, 151, and 110 distinct valid strategies, respectively, with the largest gaps in Geometry and Number Theory. The models collectively produce 50 benchmark-novel valid strategies, indicating both incomplete coverage of human strategies and some capacity for alternative reasoning. A repeated-run robustness check on 20 problems shows diminishing gains in discovered strategies, with the strongest model recovering only 39 of 55 AoPS-reference strategies (71%) after three runs. These findings position strategy diversity as a complementary dimension for evaluating mathematical reasoning beyond answer correctness.