Manipulation has long been a challenging task for robots, while humans can effortlessly perform complex interactions with objects, such as hanging a cup on the mug rack. A key reason is the lack of a large and uniform dataset for teaching robots manipulation skills. Current robot datasets often record robot action in different action spaces within a simple scene. This hinders the robot to learn a unified and robust action representation for different robots within diverse scenes. Observing how humans understand a manipulation task, we find that understanding how the objects should move in the 3D space is a critical clue for guiding actions. This clue is embodiment-agnostic and suitable for both humans and different robots. Motivated by this, we aim to learn a 3D flow world model from both human and robot manipulation data. This model predicts the future movement of the interacting objects in 3D space, guiding action planning for manipulation. Specifically, we synthesize a large-scale 3D optical flow dataset, named ManiFlow-110k, through a moving object auto-detect pipeline. A video diffusion-based world model then learns manipulation physics from these data, generating 3D optical flow trajectories conditioned on language instructions. With the generated 3D object optical flow, we propose a flow-guided rendering mechanism, which renders the predicted final state and leverages GPT-4o to assess whether the predicted flow aligns with the task description. This equips the robot with a closed-loop planning ability. Finally, we consider the predicted 3D optical flow as constraints for an optimization policy to determine a chunk of robot actions for manipulation. Extensive experiments demonstrate strong generalization across diverse robotic manipulation tasks and reliable cross-embodiment adaptation without hardware-specific training.

To what extent do vision-and-language foundation models possess a realistic world model (observation $\times$ action $\rightarrow$ observation) and a dynamics model (observation $\times$ observation $\rightarrow$ action), when actions are expressed through language? While open-source foundation models struggle with both, we find that fine-tuning them to acquire a dynamics model through supervision is significantly easier than acquiring a world model. In turn, dynamics models can be used to bootstrap world models through two main strategies: 1) weakly supervised learning from synthetic data and 2) inference time verification. Firstly, the dynamics model can annotate actions for unlabelled pairs of video frame observations to expand the training data. We further propose a new objective, where image tokens in observation pairs are weighted by their importance, as predicted by a recognition model. Secondly, the dynamics models can assign rewards to multiple samples of the world model to score them, effectively guiding search at inference time. We evaluate the world models resulting from both strategies through the task of action-centric image editing on Aurora-Bench. Our best model achieves a performance competitive with state-of-the-art image editing models, improving on them by a margin of $15\%$ on real-world subsets according to GPT4o-as-judge, and achieving the best average human evaluation across all subsets of Aurora-Bench.

Despite rapid advances in vision-language models (VLMs), current benchmarks for multimodal reasoning fall short in three key dimensions. First, they overwhelmingly rely on static images, failing to capture the temporal complexity of real-world environments. Second, they narrowly focus on mathematical problem-solving, neglecting the broader spectrum of reasoning skills -- including abstract, physical, planning, spatial, and temporal capabilities -- required for robust multimodal intelligence. Third, many benchmarks quickly saturate, offering limited headroom for diagnosing failure modes or measuring continued progress. We introduce MORSE-500 (Multimodal Reasoning Stress-test Environment), a video benchmark composed of 500 fully scripted clips with embedded questions spanning six complementary reasoning categories. Each instance is programmatically generated using deterministic Python scripts (via Manim, Matplotlib, MoviePy), generative video models, and curated real footage. This script-driven design allows fine-grained control over visual complexity, distractor density, and temporal dynamics -- enabling difficulty to be scaled systematically as models improve. Unlike static benchmarks that become obsolete once saturated, MORSE-500 is built to evolve: its controllable generation pipeline supports the creation of arbitrarily challenging new instances, making it ideally suited for stress-testing next-generation models. Initial experiments with state-of-the-art systems -- including various Gemini 2.5 Pro and OpenAI o3 which represent the strongest available at the time, alongside strong open-source models -- reveal substantial performance gaps across all categories, with particularly large deficits in abstract and planning tasks. We release the full dataset, generation scripts, and evaluation harness to support transparent, reproducible, and forward-looking multimodal reasoning research.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve higher performance on challenging reasoning tasks by generating more tokens at inference time, but this verbosity often wastes computation on easy problems. Existing solutions, including supervised finetuning on shorter traces, user-controlled budgets, or RL with uniform penalties, either require data curation, manual configuration, or treat all problems alike regardless of difficulty. We introduce Adaptive Length Penalty (ALP), a reinforcement learning objective tailoring generation length to per-prompt solve rate. During training, ALP monitors each prompt's online solve rate through multiple rollouts and adds a differentiable penalty whose magnitude scales inversely with that rate, so confident (easy) prompts incur a high cost for extra tokens while hard prompts remain unhindered. Posttraining DeepScaleR-1.5B with ALP cuts average token usage by 50\% without significantly dropping performance. Relative to fixed-budget and uniform penalty baselines, ALP redistributes its reduced budget more intelligently by cutting compute on easy prompts and reallocating saved tokens to difficult ones, delivering higher accuracy on the hardest problems with higher cost.

Recent advances in large-scale generative language models have shown that reasoning capabilities can significantly improve model performance across a variety of tasks. However, the impact of reasoning on a model's ability to mitigate stereotypical responses remains largely underexplored. In this work, we investigate the crucial relationship between a model's reasoning ability and fairness, and ask whether improved reasoning capabilities can mitigate harmful stereotypical responses, especially those arising due to shallow or flawed reasoning. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of multiple open-source LLMs, and find that larger models with stronger reasoning abilities exhibit substantially lower stereotypical bias on existing fairness benchmarks. Building on this insight, we introduce ReGiFT -- Reasoning Guided Fine-Tuning, a novel approach that extracts structured reasoning traces from advanced reasoning models and infuses them into models that lack such capabilities. We use only general-purpose reasoning and do not require any fairness-specific supervision for bias mitigation. Notably, we see that models fine-tuned using ReGiFT not only improve fairness relative to their non-reasoning counterparts but also outperform advanced reasoning models on fairness benchmarks. We also analyze how variations in the correctness of the reasoning traces and their length influence model fairness and their overall performance. Our findings highlight that enhancing reasoning capabilities is an effective, fairness-agnostic strategy for mitigating stereotypical bias caused by reasoning flaws.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has demonstrated remarkable success in enhancing model capabilities, including instruction-following, preference learning, and reasoning. Yet despite its empirical successes, the mechanisms by which RL improves reasoning abilities remain poorly understood. We present a systematic study of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), showing that its primary benefit comes from optimizing the selection of existing reasoning patterns. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that RLVR-trained models preferentially adopt high-success-rate reasoning patterns while mostly maintaining stable performance on individual patterns. We further develop theoretical analyses on the convergence and training dynamics of RLVR based on a simplified question-reason-answer model. We study the gradient flow and show that RLVR can indeed find the solution that selects the reason pattern with the highest success rate. Besides, our theoretical results reveal two distinct regimes regarding the convergence of RLVR training: (1) rapid convergence for models with relatively strong initial reasoning capabilities versus (2) slower optimization dynamics for weaker models. Furthermore, we show that the slower optimization for weaker models can be mitigated by applying the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) before RLVR, when using a feasibly high-quality SFT dataset. We validate the theoretical findings through extensive experiments. This work advances our theoretical understanding of RL's role in LLM fine-tuning and offers insights for further enhancing reasoning capabilities.

A common approach to hallucination detection casts it as a natural language inference (NLI) task, often using LLMs to classify whether the generated text is entailed by corresponding reference texts. Since entailment classification is a complex reasoning task, one would expect that LLMs could benefit from generating an explicit reasoning process, as in CoT reasoning or the explicit ``thinking'' of recent reasoning models. In this work, we propose that guiding such models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process -- one that both decomposes the text into smaller facts and also finds evidence in the source for each fact -- allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions, leading to increased performance. To that end, we define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection. Following this reasoning framework, we introduce an analysis scheme, consisting of several metrics that measure the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps, which provided additional empirical evidence for the improved quality of our guided reasoning scheme.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) applications in real-world scenarios must prioritize safety and reliability, which impose strict constraints on agent behavior. Model-based RL leverages predictive world models for action planning and policy optimization, but inherent model inaccuracies can lead to catastrophic failures in safety-critical settings. We propose a novel model-based RL framework that jointly optimizes task performance and safety. To address world model errors, our method incorporates an adaptive mechanism that dynamically switches between model-based planning and direct policy execution. We resolve the objective mismatch problem of traditional model-based approaches using an implicit world model. Furthermore, our framework employs dynamic safety thresholds that adapt to the agent's evolving capabilities, consistently selecting actions that surpass safe policy suggestions in both performance and safety. Experiments demonstrate significant improvements over non-adaptive methods, showing that our approach optimizes safety and performance simultaneously rather than merely meeting minimum safety requirements. The proposed framework achieves robust performance on diverse safety-critical continuous control tasks, outperforming existing methods.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are criticized for the excessively lengthy Chain-of-Thought (CoT) to derive the final answer, suffering from high first-token and overall latency. Typically, the CoT of LRMs mixes multiple thinking units; each unit attempts to produce a candidate answer to the original query. Hence, a natural idea to improve efficiency is to reduce the unit number. Yet, the fact that the thinking units in vanilla CoT cannot be explicitly managed renders doing so challenging. This paper introduces Multi-Turn Decomposition (MinD) to decode conventional CoT into a sequence of explicit, structured, and turn-wise interactions to bridge the gap. In MinD, the model provides a multi-turn response to the query, where each turn embraces a thinking unit and yields a corresponding answer. The subsequent turns can reflect, verify, revise, or explore alternative approaches to both the thinking and answer parts of earlier ones. This not only makes the answer delivered more swiftly, but also enables explicit controls over the iterative reasoning process (i.e., users may halt or continue at any turn). We follow a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) then reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm to realize MinD. We first rephrase the outputs of an LRM into multi-turn formats by prompting another LLM, and then tune the LRM with such data. Observing that the tuned model tends to consume even more tokens than the original one (probably due to that the multi-turn formats introduce additional answer tokens), we advocate leveraging RL algorithms like GRPO to prioritize correct outputs with fewer turns. Trained on the MATH dataset using R1-Distill models, MinD can achieve up to ~70% reduction in both output token usage and time to first token (TTFT), while maintaining competitive performance on reasoning benchmarks such as MATH-500, AIME24, AMC23, and GPQA-Diamond.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved impressive progress in vision-language understanding, they still struggle with complex multi-step reasoning, often producing logically inconsistent or partially correct solutions. A key limitation lies in the lack of fine-grained supervision over intermediate reasoning steps. To address this, we propose MM-PRM, a process reward model trained within a fully automated, scalable framework. We first build MM-Policy, a strong multimodal model trained on diverse mathematical reasoning data. Then, we construct MM-K12, a curated dataset of 10,000 multimodal math problems with verifiable answers, which serves as seed data. Leveraging a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-based pipeline, we generate over 700k step-level annotations without human labeling. The resulting PRM is used to score candidate reasoning paths in the Best-of-N inference setup and achieves significant improvements across both in-domain (MM-K12 test set) and out-of-domain (OlympiadBench, MathVista, etc.) benchmarks. Further analysis confirms the effectiveness of soft labels, smaller learning rates, and path diversity in optimizing PRM performance. MM-PRM demonstrates that process supervision is a powerful tool for enhancing the logical robustness of multimodal reasoning systems. We release all our codes and data at https://github.com/ModalMinds/MM-PRM.