The development of Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) has significantly improved multi-step reasoning capabilities, but it has also made hallucination problems more frequent and harder to eliminate. While existing approaches address hallucination through external knowledge integration, model parameter analysis, or self-verification mechanisms, they fail to provide a comprehensive insight into how hallucinations emerge and evolve throughout the reasoning chain. In this work, we investigate hallucination causality under constrained knowledge domains by auditing the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectory and assessing the model's cognitive confidence in potentially erroneous or biased claims. Analysis reveals that in long-CoT settings, RLLMs may iteratively reinforce biases and errors through flawed reflective processes, ultimately inducing hallucinated reasoning paths. Counterintuitively, even with interventions at hallucination origins, reasoning chains display pronounced "chain disloyalty", resisting correction and sustaining flawed trajectories. We further point out that existing hallucination detection methods are less reliable and interpretable than previously assumed, especially in complex multi-step reasoning contexts. Unlike circuit tracing that requires access to model parameters, our auditing enables more interpretable long-chain hallucination attribution in black-box settings, demonstrating stronger generalizability and practical utility. Our code is available at this link.

However, a prevalent issue is "superficial self-reflection", where models fail to robustly verify their own outputs. We introduce RISE (Reinforcing Reasoning with Self-Verification), a novel online RL framework designed to tackle this. RISE explicitly and simultaneously trains an LLM to improve both its problemsolving and self-verification abilities within a single, integrated RL process. The core mechanism involves leveraging verifiable rewards from an outcome verifier to provide on-the-fly feedback for both solution generation and self-verification tasks. In each iteration, the model generates solutions, then critiques its own onpolicy generated solutions, with both trajectories contributing to the policy update. Extensive experiments on diverse mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that RISE consistently improves model's problem-solving accuracy while concurrently fostering strong self-verification skills. Our analyses highlight the advantages of online verification and the benefits of increased verification compute.

We show that reinforcement learning with verifiable reward using one training example (1-shot RLVR) is effective in incentivizing the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).

Chain of thought reasoning has demonstrated remarkable success in large language models, yet its adaptation to vision-language reasoning remains an open challenge with unclear best practices. Existing attempts typically employ reasoning chains at a coarse-grained level, which struggles to perform fine-grained structured reasoning and, more importantly, are difficult to evaluate the reward and quality of intermediate reasoning.

Recent studies show that the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be improved by applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) to questionanswering (QA) tasks in areas such as math and coding. With a long context length, LLMs may learn to perform search, as indicated by the self-correction behavior observed in DeepSeek R1. However, this search behavior is often imprecise and lacks confidence, resulting in long, redundant responses and highlighting deficiencies in intuition and verification. Inspired by the Dual Process Theory in psychology, we introduce a simple modification to the QA task that includes four stages: Fast Thinking, where the LLM must answer within a strict token budget; Verification, where the model evaluates its initial response; Slow Thinking, where it refines the initial response with more deliberation; and Summarization, where it distills the refinement from the previous stage into precise steps. Our proposed task improves average accuracy from 25.6% to 27.3% for Qwen2.5-1.5B, and from 45.9% to 51.0% for DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-1.5B. Notably, for Qwen2.5-1.5B, the Fast Thinking mode alone achieves 25.2% accuracy using fewer than 1000 tokens, demonstrating substantial inference efficiency gains. These findings suggest that intuition and deliberative reasoning are distinct, complementary systems benefiting from targeted training. Additionally, we have open-sourced both the trained models and the source code.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components-Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate-and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) excel at complex reasoning tasks but typically generate lengthy sequential chains-of-thought, resulting in long inference times before arriving at the final answer. To address this challenge, we introduce SPRINT, a novel post-training and inference-time framework designed to enable LRMs to dynamically identify and exploit opportunities for parallelization during their reasoning process. SPRINT incorporates an innovative data curation pipeline that reorganizes natural language reasoning trajectories into structured rounds of longhorizon planning and parallel execution. By fine-tuning LRMs on a small amount of such curated data, the models learn to dynamically identify independent subtasks within extended reasoning processes and effectively execute them in parallel. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that models fine-tuned with the SPRINT framework match the performance of reasoning models on complex domains such as mathematics while generating up to 39% fewer sequential tokens on problems requiring more than 8,000 output tokens. Finally, we observe consistent results transferred to two out-of-distribution tasks, namely GPQA and Countdown, with up to 45% and 65% reduction in average sequential tokens respectively for longer reasoning trajectories, while matching the performance of the fine-tuned reasoning model.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has widely enhanced mathematical reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs), but it still remains challenging for extending it to multimodal domains. Existing works either adopt a similar textual reasoning for image input, or seek to interleave visual signals into mathematical CoT. However, they face three key limitations for math problem-solving: reliance on coarsegrained box-shaped image regions, limited perception of vision encoders on math content, and dependence on external capabilities for visual modification. In this paper, we propose MINT-CoT, introducing Mathematical INterleaved Tokens for Chain-of-Thought visual reasoning. MINT-CoT adaptively interleaves relevant visual tokens into textual reasoning steps via an Interleave Token, which dynamically selects visual regions of any shapes within math figures. To empower this capability, we construct the MINT-CoT dataset, containing 54K mathematical problems aligning each reasoning step with visual regions at the token level, accompanied by a rigorous data generation pipeline. We further present a threestage MINT-CoT training strategy, progressively combining text-only CoTSFT, interleaved CoTSFT, and interleaved CoTRL, which derives our MINT-CoT-7B model. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method for effective visual interleaved reasoning in mathematical domains, where MINTCoT-7B outperforms the baseline model by +34.08% on MathVista, +28.78% on GeoQA, and +23.2% on MMStar, respectively.

Recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of modeling single-cell data as natural languages and the potential of leveraging powerful large language models (LLMs) for understanding cell biology. However, a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' performance on language-driven single-cell analysis tasks remains unexplored. Motivated by this challenge, we introduce CELLVERSE, a unified language-centric question-answering benchmark that integrates four types of single-cell multi-omics data and encompasses three hierarchical levels of single-cell analysis tasks: cell type annotation (cell-level), drug response prediction (drug-level), and perturbation analysis (gene-level). Going beyond this, we systematically evaluate the performance across 14 open-source and closed-source LLMs ranging 160M 671B on CELLVERSE. Remarkably, the experimental results reveal: Existing specialist models (e.g., C2S-Pythia) fail to make reasonable decisions across all sub-tasks within CELLVERSE, while generalist models such as Qwen, Llama, GPT, and DeepSeekfamily models exhibit preliminary understanding capabilities within the realm of cell biology. The performance of current LLMs falls short of expectations and has substantial room for improvement. Notably, in the widely studied drug response prediction task, none of the evaluated LLMs demonstrate significant performance improvement over random guessing. CELLVERSE offers the first large-scale empirical demonstration that significant challenges still remain in applying LLMs to cell biology. By introducing CELLVERSE, we lay the foundation for advancing cell biology through natural languages and hope this paradigm could facilitate next-generation single-cell analysis.

Existing methods to enhance the reasoning capability of large language models predominantly rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning (RL) on reasoning-specific data. These approaches critically depend on external supervisions-such as labeled reasoning traces, verified golden answers, or pre-trained reward models. In this work, we propose Entropy Minimized Policy Optimization (EMPO), which makes an early attempt at fully unsupervised LLM reasoning incentivization. By minimizing the semantic entropy of LLMs on unlabeled questions, EMPO achieves competitive performance compared to supervised counterparts. Specifically, without any external supervision, EMPO boosts the accuracy of Qwen2.5-Math-7BBase from 33.7% to 51.6% on math benchmarks and improves the accuracy of Qwen2.5-7BBase from 32.1% to 50.1% on MMLU-Pro. Primary analysis are also provided to interpret the effectiveness of EMPO.