Thinking

Small language models (SLMs) offer efficient deployment, yet they often lag behind their larger counterparts (LLMs) in reasoning. Existing remedies either invoke an LLM at points of reasoning divergence, incurring substantial latency and cost, or rely on standard distillation, which is limited by the SLM's capacity to accurately mimic the LLM's complex generative distribution. We address this dilemma by identifying local sufficiency: at divergence points, the LLM's preferred token often resides within the SLM's top-K next-token predictions, even when failing to emerge as the SLM top-1 choice. We therefore propose Select to Think (S2T), which reframes the LLM's role from open-ended generation to selection among the SLM's proposals, simplifying the supervision signal to discrete candidate rankings. Leveraging this, we introduce S2T-Local, which distills the selection logic into the SLM, empowering it to perform autonomous re-ranking without inference-time LLM dependency. Empirically, a 1.5B SLM's top-8 candidates contain the 32B LLM's choice with a 95% hit rate, and S2T-Local improves the 1.5B SLM's Math Avg. over greedy decoding by 24.1% relative gain, matching the efficacy of 8-path self-consistency with single-trajectory efficiency.

Recent image editing models have achieved strong visual fidelity but often struggle with tasks requiring complex reasoning. To investigate and enhance the reasoning-grounded planning for image editing, we propose DDA-Thinker, a Thinker-centric framework designed for the independent optimization of a planning module (Thinker) over a fixed generative model (Editor). This decoupled Thinker-centric paradigm facilitates a controlled analysis of the planning module and makes its contribution under a fixed Editor easier to assess. To effectively guide this Thinker, we introduce a dual-atomic reinforcement learning framework. This framework decomposes feedback into two distinct atomic rewards implemented through verifiable checklists: a cognitive-atomic reward to directly assess the quality of the Thinker's executable plan, which serves as the actionable outcome of the Thinker's reasoning, and a visual-atomic reward to assess the final image quality. To improve checklist quality, our checklist synthesis is grounded not only in the source image and user instruction but also in a rational reference description of the ideal post-edit scene. To support this training, we further develop a two-stage data curation pipeline that first synthesizes a diverse and reasoning-focused dataset, then applies difficulty-aware refinement to curate an effective training curriculum for reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments on reasoning-driven image editing benchmarks, including RISE-Bench and KRIS-Bench, demonstrate that our approach substantially improves overall performance. Our method enables a community model to achieve results competitive with strong proprietary models, highlighting the practical potential of Thinker-centric optimization under a fixed-editor setting.

We study learning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision from multiple thinkers, all of whom provide correct but possibly systematically different solutions, e.g., step-by-step solutions to math problems written by different thinkers, or step-by-step execution traces of different programs solving the same problem. We consider classes that are computationally easy to learn using CoT supervision from a single thinker, but hard to learn with only end-result supervision, i.e., without CoT (Joshi et al. 2025). We establish that, under cryptographic assumptions, learning can be hard from CoT supervision provided by two or a few different thinkers, in passive data-collection settings. On the other hand, we provide a generic computationally efficient active learning algorithm that learns with a small amount of CoT data per thinker that is completely independent of the target accuracy $\varepsilon$, a moderate number of thinkers that scales as $\log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\log \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$, and sufficient passive end-result data that scales as $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot poly\log\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$.

Visual question answering increasingly requires multi-step reasoning. Recent post-training with reinforcement learning under verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) can improve multimodal reasoning, but most approaches rely on sparse outcome-only rewards. As a result, they struggle to tell whether an incorrect answer comes from a small mistake late in the reasoning or from an unhelpful trajectory from the start. A common solution is to train a process reward model (PRM) for step-level supervision, but this typically requires large-scale high-quality chain-of-thought annotations and additional training cost. We propose ProcessThinker, a practical post-training pipeline that provides step-level process rewards without training an explicit PRM. ProcessThinker first rewrites reasoning traces into a step-tagged format for cold-start supervised fine-tuning, then applies GRPO with a standard format reward and our rollout-based process reward. Concretely, for each intermediate step, we sample multiple continuations from that step and use the empirical success rate (final-answer verification) as the step reward. This gives dense credit assignment and encourages reasoning steps that more reliably support a correct conclusion, helping reduce inconsistent or self-contradictory progress across steps -- a key issue in logical reasoning. Across four challenging video benchmarks (Video-MMMU, MMVU, VideoMathQA, and LongVideoBench), ProcessThinker consistently improves over the baseline model Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct

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

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and reasoning-tuned models such as DeepSeek-R1 are commonly assumed to reduce shallow heuristic biases by thinking carefully. We test this on position bias in multiple-choice QA and find a different story: within any reasoning-capable model, per-question position bias scales with the length of the reasoning trajectory. Across thirteen reasoning-mode configurations (two R1-distilled 7-8B models, two base models prompted with CoT, and DeepSeek-R1 at 671B) on MMLU, ARC-Challenge, and GPQA, twelve show a positive partial correlation between trajectory length and Position Bias Score (PBS) after controlling for accuracy, ranging from 0.11 to 0.41 (all p < 0.05). All twelve open-weight reasoning-mode configurations show monotonically increasing PBS across length quartiles. A truncation intervention provides causal evidence: continuations resumed from later points in the trajectory are increasingly likely to shift toward position-preferred options (16% to 32% for R1-Qwen-7B across absolute-position buckets). At 671B, aggregate PBS collapses to 0.019, but the length effect still manifests in the longest quartile (PBS = 0.071), suggesting that accuracy gates the expression of length-driven bias rather than eliminating the underlying mechanism. We additionally find that direct-answer position bias is a distinct phenomenon with a different footprint (strong in Llama-Instruct-direct, weak in Qwen-Instruct-direct, and uncorrelated with trajectory length): CoT reasoning replaces this baseline bias with length-accumulated bias. Our results argue that reasoning-capable models should not be treated as order-robust by default in MCQ evaluation pipelines, and offer a diagnostic toolkit (PBS, commitment change point, effective switching, truncation probes) for auditing position bias in reasoning models.

Do large language models (LLMs) think? Daniel Stoljar and Zhihe Vincent Zhang have recently developed an argument from rationality for the claim that LLMs do not think. We contend, however, that the argument from rationality not only falters, but leaves open an intriguing possibility: that LLMs engage only in arational, associative forms of thinking, and have purely associative minds. Our positive claim is that if LLMs think at all, they likely think precisely in this manner.

Standard Transformers have a fixed computational depth, limiting their ability to generalize to tasks that require variable-depth reasoning. The usual remedy, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), spends tokens to reason, inflating the key--value cache and making latency grow with the step count, so memory becomes the limiting cost when reasoning is served over large query batches. We study a depth-recurrent Transformer that decouples computational depth from parameter count by iterating a shared-weight block, so that each added reasoning step costs flat memory and linear latency, with no token generation. Three ingredients keep the recurrence stable for 20+ thinking steps: a silent thinking objective that supervises only the final output, LayerScale initialization, and an identity-biased gate that opens a gradient highway across steps. We characterize it on three compositional domains with decreasing structural bias: graph reachability (adjacency masking), nested boolean logic (relative positioning), and unstructured relational text (no positional cue). We find a \emph{computational frontier}: accuracy climbs once the thinking-step count meets the task's complexity, reaching near-perfect performance on the two structured tasks and a lower plateau on unstructured text. How it climbs depends on the structural bias---abruptly from chance on the graph task, gradually on the other two. Depth recurrence extrapolates beyond the training range: it succeeds on the graph task where fixed-depth models barely extrapolate, and on the two sequence tasks comes within two points of fixed-depth Transformers that use $4$--$6.4\times$ more parameters. On the graph task, whose adjacency mask makes propagation depth verifiable, intermediate per-step supervision---a standard recipe for deep iterative models---consistently \emph{harms} this extrapolation. We release the code for reproducibility.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.

Multi-constraint planning involves identifying, evaluating, and refining candidate plans while satisfying multiple, potentially conflicting constraints. Existing large language model (LLM) approaches face fundamental limitations in this domain. Pure reasoning paradigms, which rely on long natural language chains, are prone to inconsistency, error accumulation, and prohibitive cost as constraints compound. Conversely, LLMs combined with coding- or solver-based strategies lack flexibility: they often generate problem-specific code from scratch or depend on fixed solvers, failing to capture generalizable logic across diverse problems. To address these challenges, we introduce the Scalable COde Planning Engine (SCOPE), a framework that disentangles query-specific reasoning from generic code execution. By separating reasoning from execution, SCOPE produces solver functions that are consistent, deterministic, and reusable across queries while requiring only minimal changes to input parameters. SCOPE achieves state-of-the-art performance while lowering cost and latency. For example, with GPT-4o, it reaches 93.1% success on TravelPlanner, a 61.6% gain over the best baseline (CoT) while cutting inference cost by 1.4x and time by ~4.67x. Code is available at https://github.com/DerrickGXD/SCOPE.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in integrating visual perception with language understanding. However, effective multimodal reasoning requires both accurate perception and robust reasoning, and weakness in either limits the performance of VLMs. Prior efforts to enhance reasoning often depend on high-quality chain-of-thought (CoT) data, obtained via labor-intensive human annotations, costly proprietary models, or self-training methods that overlook perception. To address these limitations, we propose a simple yet effective self-training framework called See-Think-Learn (STL). At its core, STL introduces a structured reasoning template that encourages the model to see before thinking, first extracting visual attributes in textual form, then using them to guide reasoning. The framework jointly improves perception and reasoning by having the model generate and learn from its own structured rationales in a self-training loop. Furthermore, we augment the training data with negative rationales, i.e. explanations that justify why certain answer choices are incorrect, to enhance the model's ability to distinguish between correct and misleading responses. This fosters more discriminative and robust learning. Experiments across diverse domains show that STL consistently outperforms baselines trained directly only on answers or self-generated reasoning, while qualitative analysis confirms the high quality of its rationales. STL thus provides a cost-effective solution to enhance multimodal reasoning ability of VLMs.

Personalized image preference assessment aims to evaluate an individual user's image preferences by relying only on a small set of reference images as prior information. Existing methods mainly focus on general preference assessment, training models with large-scale data to tackle well-defined tasks such as text-image alignment. However, these approaches struggle to handle personalized preference because user-specific data are scarce and not easily scalable, and individual tastes are often diverse and complex. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a common preference profile that serves as a bridge across users, allowing large-scale user data to be leveraged for training profile prediction and capturing complex personalized preferences. Building on this idea, we propose a reasoning-based personalized image preference assessment framework that follows a \textit{predict-then-assess} paradigm: it first predicts a user's preference profile from reference images, and then provides interpretable, multi-dimensional scores and assessments of candidate images based on the predicted profile. To support this, we first construct a large-scale Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-style personalized assessment dataset annotated with diverse user preference profiles and high-quality CoT-style reasoning, enabling explicit supervision of structured reasoning. Next, we adopt a two-stage training strategy: a cold-start supervised fine-tuning phase to empower the model with structured reasoning capabilities, followed by reinforcement learning to incentivize the model to explore more reasonable assessment paths and enhance generalization. Furthermore, we propose a similarity-aware prediction reward to encourage better prediction of the user's preference profile, which facilitates more reasonable assessments exploration. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method.

Understanding persuasion is critical for the safety and reliability of multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs). This paper studies persuasion dynamics by contrasting general LLMs with Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) that employ explicit ``thinking'' processes. Through large-scale experiments on objective (MMLU) and subjective (PersuasionBench and Perspectrum) tasks, we identify Persuasion Duality: reasoning enhances an agent's persuasive power while simultaneously increasing its resistance to persuasion. For LRMs, adding thinking content increases persuasion rates by 21 pp on average, yet reduces susceptibility to incorrect persuasion by up to 10 pp on objective tasks. Despite these gains, we uncover a critical vulnerability: persuasiveness often stems from superficial cues such as response length and repetition rather than logical validity. Non-semantic padding or repeated conclusions can match or exceed the persuasive effect of coherent reasoning, revealing a strong length bias in agents' judgments. We further show that persuasion propagates non-linearly in multi-hop agent chains, where intermediate agents may amplify or attenuate influence depending on task subjectivity. Finally, guided by attention analysis, we propose a prompt-level adversarial argument detection method that consistently improves agent robustness.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can exhibit step-by-step reasoning, reflection, and backtracking, but these behaviors are often unregulated, leading to overthinking. As a result, LRMs continue generating redundant reasoning even after reaching high-confidence conclusions. This increases inference cost and latency, limiting practical deployment. The root cause is the absence of an intrinsic mechanism to monitor the reasoning state and decide when to continue, backtrack, or stop. We propose MERA, a meta-cognitive reasoning framework that decouples reasoning from control to enable independent optimization of control strategies. MERA constructs high-quality reasoning-control supervision data via a takeover-based pipeline, and transforms long-horizon traces into structured reasoning-control alternating sequences for training. The model is trained with supervised fine-tuning to internalize the structured separation, and further optimized with Control-Segment Policy Optimization (CSPO), which combines segment-wise GRPO with control masking to focus learning on control segments. Experiments across reasoning benchmarks show that MERA improves both efficiency and accuracy.

Reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, enabling adaptive decision-making in complex unfamiliar scenarios. In contrast, machine intelligence remains bound to training data, unable to dynamically refine solutions at inference. While recent advances have explored machine reasoning - trading inference-time compute for improved performance - they focus on verbal domains such as mathematical problem-solving where explicit rules govern step-by-step solution generation. Many tasks lack sufficient labelled data and require alternative performance improvement mechanisms, such as inference-time compute. Here we present a paradigm for machine reasoning in vision, enabling performance improvements with increasing thinking time (inference-time compute), even with limited labelled data. Our approach is inspired by dual-process theories of human cognition, integrating a fast-thinking System I module for generating and verifying solutions in familiar tasks, with a slow-thinking System II module that iteratively refines predictions using self-play reinforcement learning, even when task-specific data is limited. This paradigm involves proposing, competing over, and refining solutions until convergence. We demonstrate that extended inference-time compute yields superior performance compared to large-scale supervised learning, foundation models, and human experts in vision tasks. These include computer-vision benchmarks and cancer localisation across five organs, highlighting the potential of inference-time compute for data-scarce problems.