Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards has emerged as a powerful technique for enhancing the complex reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, these methods are fundamentally constrained by the ''learning cliff'' phenomenon: when faced with problems far beyond their current capabilities, models consistently fail, yielding a persistent zero-reward signal. In policy optimization algorithms like GRPO, this collapses the advantage calculation to zero, rendering these difficult problems invisible to the learning gradient and stalling progress. To overcome this, we introduce Scaf-GRPO (Scaffolded Group Relative Policy Optimization), a progressive training framework that strategically provides minimal guidance only when a model's independent learning has plateaued. The framework first diagnoses learning stagnation and then intervenes by injecting tiered in-prompt hints, ranging from abstract concepts to concrete steps, enabling the model to construct a valid solution by itself. Extensive experiments on challenging mathematics benchmarks demonstrate Scaf-GRPO's effectiveness, boosting the pass@1 score of the Qwen2.5-Math-7B model on the AIME24 benchmark by a relative 44.3% over a vanilla GRPO baseline. This result demonstrates our framework provides a robust and effective methodology for unlocking a model's ability to solve problems previously beyond its reach, a critical step towards extending the frontier of autonomous reasoning in LLM.

The long chain-of-thought (LongCoT) capability is central to the recent breakthroughs achieved by large language models in complex reasoning tasks. However, the accompanying issue of ''underthinking'', where models exhibit shallow reasoning by frequently switching thoughts without sufficient exploration, limits both performance and token efficiency. To address this problem, we propose a simple yet effective reasoning strategy: the SmartSwitch inference framework. This framework can be easily integrated into any large language model as a plug-and-play solution, continuously monitoring the model's reasoning process to detect underthinking and guide it toward deeper exploration of promising but overlooked thoughts. Specifically, the perception module identifies points where thoughts switch and evaluates the potential of the preceding thought using an off-the-shelf process reward model (PRM). If a high-potential thought is found to be prematurely abandoned, the intervention module interrupts the ongoing inference, backtracks to the point before the switch, and inserts a "deepening prompt" to encourage further exploration along that promising path. Extensive experiments on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the performance of various large language models of different sizes.

Why do thinking language models like DeepSeek R1 outperform their base counterparts? Despite consistent performance gains, it remains unclear to what extent thinking models learn entirely new reasoning capabilities or repurpose pre-existing base model ones. In this work, we propose a hybrid model where we activate reasoning mechanisms in base models at the right time to elicit thinking-model-level reasoning chains, implying that thinking models exploit already existing capabilities. To ground our analysis, we introduce an unsupervised, bottom-up approach for uncovering human-interpretable reasoning behaviors in thinking models. This approach provides an unbiased method to discover reasoning behaviors without imposing manual or LLM-derived assumptions. Across three base and four thinking models, using GSM8K and MATH500, our hybrid model recovers up to 91% of the performance gap to thinking models without any weight updates while steering only 12% of tokens. Concretely, our empirical setup provides a simple, causal way to test the effectiveness of existing reasoning mechanisms in base models by invoking them directly and measuring the resulting task performance. More broadly, these results reframe our understanding of how thinking models are trained: pre-training is when models acquire most of their reasoning mechanisms, and post-training teaches efficient deployment of these mechanisms at the right time, enabling efficient use of their inference-time compute.

Test-time compute has led to remarkable success in the large language model (LLM) community, particularly for complex tasks, where longer chains of thought (CoTs) are generated to enhance reasoning capabilities. However, growing evidence reveals that such reasoning models often produce CoTs plagued by excessive redundancy, including unnecessary verification steps and repetitive reasoning shifts. The root cause lies in post-training of them that overly rely on outcome reward paradigms, as the data of process reward paradigms, which regulate intermediate reasoning steps, is difficult to construct at scale. To address this, we propose PI, a novel framework for Test-time Prompt Intervention. PI provides an interface to dynamically guide and regulate reasoning paths during inference through timely (When module) and proper (How module) interventions and post-intervention sampling (Which module). This allows human problem-solving expertise and cognitive science principles to be seamlessly integrated into LLMs' reasoning processes, enhancing controllability and interpretability. Extensive experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that PI significantly shortens CoTs while reducing hallucination, yielding more concise and reliable reasoning.

We address the challenge of adopting language models (LMs) for embodied tasks in dynamic environments, where online access to large-scale inference engines or symbolic planners is constrained due to latency, connectivity, and resource limitations. To this end, we present NeSyPr, a novel embodied reasoning framework that compiles knowledge via neurosymbolic proceduralization, thereby equipping LM-based agents with structured, adaptive, and timely reasoning capabilities. In NeSyPr, task-specific plans are first explicitly generated by a symbolic tool leveraging its declarative knowledge. These plans are then transformed into composable procedural representations that encode the plans' implicit production rules, enabling the resulting composed procedures to be seamlessly integrated into the LM's inference process. This neurosymbolic proceduralization abstracts and generalizes multi-step symbolic structured path-finding and reasoning into single-step LM inference, akin to human knowledge compilation. It supports efficient test-time inference without relying on external symbolic guidance, making it well suited for deployment in latency-sensitive and resource-constrained physical systems. We evaluate NeSyPr on the embodied benchmarks PDDLGym, VirtualHome, and ALFWorld, demonstrating its efficient reasoning capabilities over large-scale reasoning models and a symbolic planner, while using more compact LMs.

Designing adaptive mechanisms to align individual and collective interests remains a central challenge in artificial social intelligence. Existing methods often struggle with modeling heterogeneous agents possessing persistent latent traits (e.g., skills, preferences) and dealing with complex multi-agent system dynamics. These challenges are compounded by the critical need for high sample efficiency due to costly real-world interactions. World Models, by learning to predict environmental dynamics, offer a promising pathway to enhance mechanism design in heterogeneous and complex systems. In this paper, we introduce a novel method named SWM-AP (Social World Model-Augmented Mechanism Design Policy Learning), which learns a social world model hierarchically modeling agents' behavior to enhance mechanism design. Specifically, the social world model infers agents' traits from their interaction trajectories and learns a trait-based model to predict agents' responses to the deployed mechanisms. The mechanism design policy collects extensive training trajectories by interacting with the social world model, while concurrently inferring agents' traits online during real-world interactions to further boost policy learning efficiency. Experiments in diverse settings (tax policy design, team coordination, and facility location) demonstrate that SWM-AP outperforms established model-based and model-free RL baselines in cumulative rewards and sample efficiency.

Reasoning models have demonstrated exceptional performance in tasks such as mathematics and logical reasoning, primarily due to their ability to engage in step-by-step thinking during the reasoning process. However, this often leads to overthinking, resulting in unnecessary computational overhead. To address this issue, Mode Selection aims to automatically decide between Long-CoT (Chain-of-Thought) or Short-CoT by utilizing either a Thinking or NoThinking mode. Simultaneously, Early Exit determines the optimal stopping point during the iterative reasoning process. Both methods seek to reduce the computational burden. In this paper, we first identify Mode Selection as a more challenging variant of the Early Exit problem, as they share similar objectives but differ in decision timing. While Early Exit focuses on determining the best stopping point for concise reasoning at inference time, Mode Selection must make this decision at the beginning of the reasoning process, relying on pre-defined fake thoughts without engaging in an explicit reasoning process, referred to as zero-step thinking. Through empirical studies on nine baselines, we observe that prompt-based approaches often fail due to their limited classification capabilities when provided with minimal hand-crafted information. In contrast, approaches that leverage internal information generally perform better across most scenarios but still exhibit issues with stability. Our findings indicate that existing methods relying solely on the information provided by models are insufficient for effectively addressing Mode Selection in scenarios with limited information, highlighting the ongoing challenges of this task. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trae1ounG/Zero_Step_Thinking.

We present a two-phase vision-language QA system for autonomous driving that answers high-level perception, prediction, and planning questions. In Phase-1, a large multimodal LLM (Qwen2.5-VL-32B) is conditioned on six-camera inputs, a short temporal window of history, and a chain-of-thought prompt with few-shot exemplars. A self-consistency ensemble (multiple sampled reasoning chains) further improves answer reliability. In Phase-2, we augment the prompt with nuScenes scene metadata (object annotations, ego-vehicle state, etc.) and category-specific question instructions (separate prompts for perception, prediction, planning tasks). In experiments on a driving QA benchmark, our approach significantly outperforms the baseline Qwen2.5 models. For example, using 5 history frames and 10-shot prompting in Phase-1 yields 65.1% overall accuracy (vs.62.61% with zero-shot); applying self-consistency raises this to 66.85%. Phase-2 achieves 67.37% overall. Notably, the system maintains 96% accuracy under severe visual corruption. These results demonstrate that carefully engineered prompts and contextual grounding can greatly enhance high-level driving QA with pretrained vision-language models.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently proven effective at scaling chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in large language models on tasks with verifiable answers. However, extending RL to more general non-verifiable tasks, typically in the format of human preference pairs, remains both challenging and underexplored. In this work, we propose Dual-Weighted Reinforcement Learning (DWRL), a new framework for preference modeling that integrates CoT reasoning with the Bradley-Terry (BT) model via a dual-weighted RL objective that preserves preference-modeling inductive bias. DWRL approximates the maximum-likelihood objective of the BT model with two complementary weights: an instance-wise misalignment weight, which emphasizes under-trained pairs misaligned with human preference, and a group-wise (self-normalized) conditional preference score, which promotes promising thoughts. In this paper, we apply DWRL to preference modeling by training generative preference models (GPMs) to first generate a thought and then predict the human preference score. Across multiple benchmarks and model scales (Llama3 and Qwen2.5), DWRL consistently outperforms both GPM baselines and scalar models, while producing coherent, interpretable thoughts. In summary, our results position DWRL as a general framework for reasoning-enhanced preference learning beyond verifiable tasks.

Improving the reasoning capabilities of embodied agents is crucial for robots to complete complex human instructions in long-view manipulation tasks successfully. Despite the success of large language models and vision language models based on Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) in planning tasks, they continue facing challenges in performing long-horizon manipulation tasks in complex real-world environments, owing to their restricted common sense and reasoning capabilities. Considering that aligning general-purpose vision language models to robotic planning tasks via supervised fine-tuning suffers from poor generalization and insufficient physical understanding, we propose RoboGPT-R1, a two-stage fine-tuning framework for embodied planning. In this framework, supervised training acquires foundational knowledge through expert sequences, followed by RL to address the model's shortcomings in visual-spatial understanding and reasoning. To achieve physical understanding and action sequence consistency in multi-step reasoning tasks, we design a rule-based reward function that simultaneously considers long-horizon performance and action constraint in the environment. The reasoning model, trained on Qwen2.5-VL-3B, significantly outperforms the larger-scale model, GPT-4o-mini, by 21.33% and surpasses other work trained on Qwen2.5-VL-7B by 20.33% on the EmbodiedBench benchmark.