Test-time compute has emerged as a key paradigm for enhancing LLM reasoning, yet prevailing approaches like Best-of-N and majority voting apply uniform depth across inputs, wasting computation on simple queries while potentially under-thinking complex ones. We present FR-Ponder, a single-graph, backbone-training-free framework that allocates instance-adaptive reasoning compute via latent steering. A less than 1M-param controller observes hidden states and decides to halt or apply a small ponder step by adding a pre-computed steering vector to frozen representations. Our method extracts the latent steering vector associated with deeper reasoning outputs and direct IO from LLM and re-applies it through a tunable scaling factor, allowing the model to adapt its reasoning depth to the complexity of each input. To balance performance and computational cost, we employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) as a reward signal to adaptively regulate reasoning depth, achieving task accuracy while mitigating overreasoning. Through curriculum learning and careful reward engineering, FR-Ponder learns calibrated compute allocation correlated with problem difficulty. On GSM8K and MA TH500, FR-Ponder improves the compute-accuracy frontier, delivering lower FLOPs with better matched accuracy and comparing favorably to early-exit baselines, without modifying backbone weights. Analyses visualize interpretable steering directions and show learned compute allocation correlates with problem difficulty.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces. We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval. To test this hypothesis, we conduct controlled experiments that challenge LRMs with misleading cues during reasoning and/or corrupted answers during retrieval. Our results across models and datasets confirm that both mechanisms operate simultaneously, with their relative dominance influenced by multiple factors: problem domains, model scales, and fine-tuning approaches (e.g., reinforcement learning vs. distillation). The findings reveal a critical limitation in current reasoning fine-tuning paradigms: models can exploit the retrieval mechanism as a shortcut, effectively "hacking" the reward signal and undermining genuine reasoning development. To address this challenge, we introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning. By carefully suppressing retrieval shortcuts during the fine-tuning process, FARL promotes reasoning-dominant behavior and enhances generalizable reasoning capabilities.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enhances reasoning in large language models (LLMs) but often leads to verbose and redundant outputs, thus increasing inference cost. We hypothesize that many reasoning steps are unnecessary for producing correct answers. To investigate this, we start with a systematic study to examine what is the minimum reasoning required for a model to reach a stable decision. We find that on math reasoning tasks like math, models typically converge to their final answers after 60\% of the reasoning steps, suggesting substantial redundancy in the remaining content. Based on these insights, we propose three inference-time strategies to improve efficiency: (1) early stopping via answer consistency, (2) boosting the probability of generating end-of-reasoning signals, and (3) a supervised method that learns when to stop based on internal activations. Experiments across five benchmarks and five open-weights LLMs show that our methods significantly reduce token usage with little or no accuracy drop. In particular, on NaturalQuestions, Answer Consistency reduces tokens by over 40\% while further improving accuracy. Our work underscores the importance of cost-effective reasoning methods that operate at inference time, offering practical benefits for real-world applications.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their multimodal extensions (MLLMs) have substantially enhanced machine reasoning across diverse tasks. However, these models predominantly rely on pure text as the medium for both expressing and structuring reasoning, even when visual information is present. In this work, we argue that language may not always be the most natural or effective modality for reasoning, particularly in tasks involving spatial and geometrical information. Motivated by this, we propose a new paradigm, Visual Planning, which enables planning through purely visual representations for these "vision-first" tasks, as a supplementary channel to language-based reasoning. In this paradigm, planning is executed via sequences of images that encode step-by-step inference in the visual domain, akin to how humans sketch or visualize future actions. We introduce a novel reinforcement learning framework, Visual Planning via Reinforcement Learning (VPRL), empowered by GRPO for post-training large vision models, leading to substantial improvements in planning in a selection of representative visual navigation tasks, FrozenLake, Maze, and MiniBehavior. Our visual planning paradigm outperforms all other planning variants that conduct reasoning in the text-only space. Our results establish Visual Planning as a viable and promising supplement to language-based reasoning, opening new avenues for tasks that benefit from intuitive, image-based inference.

Reactive dance generation (RDG), the task of generating a dance conditioned on a lead dancer's motion, holds significant promise for enhancing human-robot interaction and immersive digital entertainment. Despite progress in duet synchronization and motion-music alignment, two key challenges remain: generating fine-grained spatial interactions and ensuring long-term temporal coherence. In this work, we introduce \textbf{ReactDance}, a diffusion framework that operates on a novel hierarchical latent space to address these spatiotemporal challenges in RDG. First, for high-fidelity spatial expression and fine-grained control, we propose Hierarchical Finite Scalar Quantization (\textbf{HFSQ}). This multi-scale motion representation effectively disentangles coarse body posture from subtle limb dynamics, enabling independent and detailed control over both aspects through a layered guidance mechanism. Second, to efficiently generate long sequences with high temporal coherence, we propose Blockwise Local Context (\textbf{BLC}), a non-autoregressive sampling strategy. Departing from slow, frame-by-frame generation, BLC partitions the sequence into blocks and synthesizes them in parallel via periodic causal masking and positional encodings. Coherence across these blocks is ensured by a dense sliding-window training approach that enriches the representation with local temporal context. Extensive experiments show that ReactDance substantially outperforms state-of-the-art methods in motion quality, long-term coherence, and sampling efficiency.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques have significantly enhanced reasoning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Extending this paradigm, Visual CoT integrates explicit visual edits, such as cropping or annotating regions of interest, into the reasoning process, achieving superior multimodal performance. However, the robustness of Visual CoT-based VLMs against image-level noise remains unexplored. In this paper, we present the first systematic evaluation of Visual CoT robustness under visual perturbations. Our benchmark spans 12 image corruption types across 4 Visual Question Answering (VQA) datasets, enabling a comprehensive comparison between VLMs that use Visual CoT, and VLMs that do not. The results reveal that integrating Visual CoT consistently improves absolute accuracy regardless of whether the input images are clean or corrupted by noise; however, it also increases sensitivity to input perturbations, resulting in sharper performance degradation compared to standard VLMs. Through extensive analysis, we identify the intermediate reasoning components of Visual CoT, i.e., the edited image patches , as the primary source of fragility. Building on this analysis, we propose a plug-and-play robustness enhancement method that integrates Grounding DINO model into the Visual CoT pipeline, providing high-confidence local visual cues to stabilize reasoning. Our work reveals clear fragility patterns in Visual CoT and offers an effective, architecture-agnostic solution for enhancing visual robustness.

A central challenge in explainable AI, particularly in the visual domain, is producing explanations grounded in human-understandable concepts. To tackle this, we introduce OCEAN (Object-Centric Explananda via Agent Negotiation), a novel, inherently interpretable framework built on object-centric representations and a transparent multi-agent reasoning process. The game-theoretic reasoning process drives agents to agree on coherent and discriminative evidence, resulting in a faithful and interpretable decision-making process. We train OCEAN end-to-end and benchmark it against standard visual classifiers and popular posthoc explanation tools like GradCAM and LIME across two diagnostic multi-object datasets. Our results demonstrate competitive performance with respect to state-of-the-art black-box models with a faithful reasoning process, which was reflected by our user study, where participants consistently rated OCEAN's explanations as more intuitive and trustworthy.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently advanced in reasoning when optimized with reinforcement learning (RL) under verifiable rewards. Existing methods primarily rely on outcome-based supervision to strengthen internal LLM reasoning, often leading to inefficient exploration and sparse rewards. To mitigate this issue, we propose Expert-Assisted Policy Optimization (EAPO), a novel RL framework that enhances exploration by incorporating multi-turn interactions with external experts during training. Unlike prior methods, where policies reason in isolation, EAPO incentivizes the policy to adaptively determine when and how to consult experts, yielding richer reward signals and more reliable reasoning trajectories. External assistance ultimately internalizes expert knowledge into the policy model, amplifying the model's inherent reasoning capabilities. During evaluation, the policy model has been well-optimized to solve questions independently, producing improved reasoning paths and more accurate solutions. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, including AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and AIMO 2025, show that EAPO consistently outperforms expert-assisted workflow, expert-distilled models, and RL baselines, with an average gain of 5 points over self-exploratory models.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show promising results for embodied agents in operating meaningfully in complex, human-centered environments. Yet, evaluating their capacity for nuanced, human-like reasoning and decision-making remains challenging. In this work, we introduce VIVA+, a cognitively grounded benchmark for evaluating the reasoning and decision-making of MLLMs in human-centered situations. VIVA+ consists of 1,317 real-world situations paired with 6,373 multiple-choice questions, targeting three core abilities for decision-making: (1) Foundational Situation Comprehension, (2) Context-Driven Action Justification, and (3) Reflective Reasoning. Together, these dimensions provide a systematic framework for assessing a model's ability to perceive, reason, and act in socially meaningful ways. We evaluate the latest commercial and open-source models on VIVA+, where we reveal distinct performance patterns and highlight significant challenges. We further explore targeted training and multi-step reasoning strategies, which yield consistent performance improvements. Finally, our in-depth analysis highlights current model limitations and provides actionable insights for advancing MLLMs toward more robust, context-aware, and socially adept decision-making in real-world settings.

Enhancing the complex reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) attracts widespread attention. While reinforcement learning (RL) has shown superior performance for improving complex reasoning, its impact on cross-lingual generalization compared to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) remains unexplored. We present the first systematic investigation into cross-lingual reasoning generalization of RL and SFT. Using Qwen2.5-3B-Base as our foundation model, we conduct experiments on diverse multilingual reasoning benchmarks, including math reasoning, commonsense reasoning, and scientific reasoning. Our investigation yields two significant findings: (1) Tuning with RL not only achieves higher accuracy but also demonstrates substantially stronger cross-lingual generalization capabilities compared to SFT. (2) RL training on non-English data yields better overall performance and generalization than training on English data, which is not observed with SFT. Furthermore, through comprehensive mechanistic analyses, we explore the underlying factors of RL's superiority and generalization across languages. Our results provide compelling evidence that RL enables the model with more robust reasoning strategies, offering crucial guidance for more equitable and effective multilingual reasoning.