We introduce, one of the first open-source large vision-language models (LVLMs) to exhibit sophisticated chain-of-thought reasoning, achieving notable performance gains on challenging visual reasoning tasks. While text-based reasoning models (e.g., Deepseek R1) show promising results in text-only tasks, distilling their reasoning into LVLMs via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often results in performance degradation due to imprecise visual grounding. Conversely, purely reinforcement learning (RL)-based methods face a large search space, hindering the emergence of reflective behaviors in smaller models (e.g., 7B LVLMs). Surprisingly, alternating between SFT and RL ultimately results in significant performance improvements after a few iterations. Our analysis reveals that the base model rarely exhibits reasoning behaviors initially, but SFT effectively surfaces these latent actions and narrows the RL search space, accelerating the development of reasoning capabilities. Each subsequent RL stage further refines the model's reasoning skills, producing higher-quality SFT data for continued self-improvement.

Reasoning has substantially improved the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complicated tasks. Central to the current reasoning studies, Process Reward Models (PRMs) offer a fine-grained evaluation of intermediate reasoning steps and guide the reasoning process. However, extending PRMs to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) introduces challenges. Since multimodal reasoning covers a wider range of tasks compared to text-only scenarios, the resulting distribution shift from the training to testing sets is more severe, leading to greater generalization difficulty. Training a reliable multimodal PRM, therefore, demands large and diverse datasets to ensure sufficient coverage.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities in code-related tasks, but their robustness in code reasoning under perturbations remains underexplored. We introduce CodeCrash, a stress-testing framework with 1,279 questions from CRUXEVAL and LIVECODEBENCH, designed to evaluate reasoning reliability under structural perturbations and misleading natural language (NL) contexts. Through a systematic evaluation of 17 LLMs, we find that models often shortcut reasoning by over-relying on NL cues, leading to an average performance degradation of 23.2% in output prediction tasks. Even with Chain-of-Thought reasoning, models on average still have a 13.8% drop due to distractibility and rationalization, revealing a lack of critical reasoning capability to distinguish the actual code behaviors. While Large Reasoning Models with internal reasoning mechanisms improve robustness by fostering critical thinking, plausible yet incorrect hints can trigger pathological self-reflection, causing 2-3 times token consumption and even catastrophic cognitive dissonance in extreme cases for QwQ-32B. We refer to this phenomenon as Reasoning Collapse. CodeCrash provides a rigorous benchmark for evaluating robustness in code reasoning, guiding future research and development toward more reliable and resilient models.

Large reasoning models (LRMs), such as OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1, demonstrate impressive long-horizon reasoning capabilities. However, their reliance on static internal knowledge limits their performance on complex, knowledge-intensive tasks and hinders their ability to produce comprehensive research reports requiring synthesis of diverse web information. To address this, we propose WebThinker, a deep research agent that empowers LRMs to autonomously search the web, navigate among web pages, and draft reports during the reasoning process. WebThinker integrates a Deep Web Explorer module, enabling LRMs to dynamically search, navigate, and extract information from the web when encountering knowledge gaps. It also employs an Autonomous Think-Search-and-Draft strategy, allowing the model to seamlessly interleave reasoning, information gathering, and report writing in real time. To further enhance research tool utilization, we introduce an RL-based training strategy via iterative online Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Extensive experiments on complex reasoning benchmarks (GPQA, GAIA, WebWalkerQA, HLE) and scientific report generation tasks (Glaive) demonstrate that WebThinker significantly outperforms existing methods and strong proprietary systems. Our approach enhances LRM reliability and applicability in complex scenarios, paving the way for more capable and versatile deep research systems.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have recently shown impressive capabilities in complex reasoning and tool use via multi-step interactions with their environments. While these agents have the potential to tackle complicated tasks, their problem-solving process--agents' interaction trajectory leading to task completion--remains underexploited. These trajectories contain rich feedback that can navigate agents toward the right directions for solving problems correctly. Although prevailing approaches, such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), can effectively balance exploration and exploitation, they ignore the interdependence among various trajectories and lack the diversity of search spaces, which leads to redundant reasoning and suboptimal outcomes. To address these challenges, we propose SE-Agent, a Self-Evolution framework that enables Agents to optimize their reasoning processes iteratively.

Recent advancements underscore the significant role of Reinforcement Learning (RL) in enhancing the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Two prominent RL algorithms, Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), are central to these developments, showcasing different pros and cons. Autoregressive image generation, also interpretable as a sequential CoT reasoning process, presents unique challenges distinct from LLM-based CoT reasoning. These encompass ensuring text-image consistency, improving image aesthetic quality, and designing sophisticated reward models, rather than relying on simpler rule-based rewards. While recent efforts have extended RL to this domain, these explorations typically lack an in-depth analysis of the domain-specific challenges and the characteristics of different RL strategies.

Among various efforts to enhance LLMs' reasoning capabilities, synthesizing large-scale, high-quality logical reasoning datasets has emerged as a promising direction. However, existing methods often rely on predefined templates for logical reasoning data generation, limiting their adaptability to real-world scenarios.

While recent success of large reasoning models (LRMs) significantly advanced LLMs' reasoning capability by optimizing the final answer accuracy using reinforcement learning, they may also drastically increase the output length due to --characterized by unnecessarily complex reasoning paths that waste computation and potentially degrade the performance. We hypothesize that such inefficiencies stem from LRMs' limited capability to dynamically select the proper modular reasoning strategies, termed at the right position. To investigate this hypothesis, we propose a dynamic optimization framework that segments model-generated reasoning paths into distinct thinking patterns, systematically identifying and promoting beneficial patterns that improve the answer while removing detrimental ones. Empirical analysis confirms that our optimized thinking paths yield more concise yet sufficiently informative trajectories, enhancing reasoning efficiency by reducing attention FLOPs by up to 47% while maintaining accuracy for originally correct responses. Moreover, a non-trivial portion of originally incorrect responses are transformed into correct ones, achieving a 15.6% accuracy improvement with reduced length. Motivated by the improvement brought by the optimized thinking paths, we apply a preference optimization technique supported by a pairwise dataset contrasting suboptimal and optimal reasoning paths. Experimental evaluations across multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks reveal that our method notably reduces computational overhead while simultaneously improving reasoning accuracy, achieving up to a 12% accuracy improvement and reducing token usage from approximately 5,000 to 3,000 tokens.

The task of geometry problem solving has been a long-standing focus in the automated mathematics community and draws growing attention due to its complexity for both symbolic and neural models. Although prior studies have explored various effective approaches for enhancing problem solving performances, two fundamental challenges remain unaddressed, which are essential to the application in practical scenarios. First, the multi-step reasoning gap between the initial geometric conditions and ultimate problem goal leads to a great search space for solution exploration. Second, obtaining multiple interpretable and shorter solutions remains an open problem. In this work, we introduce the Causal-Reasoning Geometry Problem Solver to overcome these challenges.

Despite significant advances in Vision Language Models (VLMs), they remain constrained by the complexity and redundancy of visual input. When images contain large amounts of irrelevant information, VLMs are susceptible to interference, thus generating excessive task-irrelevant reasoning processes or even hallucinations. This limitation stems from their inability to discover and process the required regions during reasoning precisely. To address this limitation, we present the Chain of Foresight-Focus Thought (CoFFT), a novel training-free approach that enhances VLMs' visual reasoning by emulating human visual cognition. Each Foresight-Focus Thought consists of three stages: (1) Diverse Sample Generation: generates diverse reasoning samples to explore potential reasoning paths, where each sample contains several reasoning steps; (2) Dual Foresight Decoding: rigorously evaluates these samples based on both visual focus and reasoning progression, adding the first step of optimal sample to the reasoning process; (3) Visual Focus Adjustment: precisely adjust visual focus toward regions most beneficial for future reasoning, before returning to stage (1) to generate subsequent reasoning samples until reaching the final answer. These stages function iteratively, creating an interdependent cycle where reasoning guides visual focus and visual focus informs subsequent reasoning.