Large reasoning models (LRMs) are proficient at generating explicit, step-by-step reasoning sequences before producing final answers. However, such detailed reasoning can introduce substantial computational overhead and latency, particularly for simple problems. To address this overthinking problem, we explore how to equip LRMs with adaptive thinking capabilities, enabling them to dynamically decide whether to engage in explicit reasoning based on problem complexity. Building on R1-style distilled models, we observe that inserting a simple ellipsis ("...") into the prompt can stochastically trigger either a thinking or no-thinking mode, revealing a latent controllability in the reasoning behavior. Leveraging this property, we propose AutoThink, a multi-stage reinforcement learning (RL) framework that progressively optimizes reasoning policies via stage-wise reward shaping. AutoThink learns to invoke explicit reasoning only when necessary, while defaulting to succinct responses for simpler tasks. Experiments on five mainstream mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that AutoThink achieves favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-offs compared to recent prompting and RL-based pruning methods. It can be seamlessly integrated into any R1-style model, including both distilled and further fine-tuned variants. Notably, AutoThink improves relative accuracy by 6.4% while reducing token usage by 52% on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, establishing a scalable and adaptive reasoning paradigm for LRMs.

Deep learning models for drug--target interaction (DTI) prediction often achieve strong benchmark performance without necessarily relying on mechanistically meaningful molecular features, a limitation that standard accuracy-based evaluation cannot detect. We introduce ISAAC (Intervention-based Structural Auditing Approach for Causal Reasoning), a post-hoc framework that evaluates prior-relative structural sensitivity by probing frozen models through matched mechanistic and spurious input-level interventions, independently of predictive accuracy. Applied to three sequence-based DTI architectures on the Davis benchmark, ISAAC reveals approximately 25\% relative differences in reasoning scores across models with comparable AUROC (within around 3\%), stable across training and intervention seeds and two distinct perturbation operators. These discrepancies, undetectable under conventional accuracy metrics, motivate the use of post-hoc structural auditing as a complement to standard performance evaluation in scientific machine learning for molecular modeling.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a central approach for improving the reasoning ability of large language models. Recent work studies RLVR through token entropy, arguing that high-entropy tokens drive exploration and should receive stronger updates. However, they overlook the fact that most of a reasoning trajectory consists of low-entropy segments that encode stable and reusable structural patterns. Through qualitative and quantitative analyses, we find that the overlap of low-entropy segments across correct responses strongly correlates with model accuracy, while overlaps involving incorrect responses exhibit stable but unproductive patterns. Motivated by these findings, we propose LESS, a correctness-aware reinforcement framework that performs fine-grained advantage modulation over low-entropy segments. LESS amplifies segments unique to correct responses, suppresses those unique to incorrect ones, and neutralizes segments shared by both, while preserving high-entropy exploration in the underlying RL algorithm. Instantiated on top of the popular GRPO, LESS consistently improves accuracy over strong RL baselines across three backbones and six math benchmarks, achieves stronger robustness of the performance floor.

Tool-augmented Language Models (TaLMs) can invoke external tools to solve problems beyond their parametric capacity. However, it remains unclear whether these tool-enabled gains reflect trustworthy reasoning. Focusing on the Code Interpreter tool, we show that even when tools are selected and executed correctly, TaLMs treat tool outputs as substitutes for reasoning, producing solutions that appear correct but lack coherent justification. We term this failure mode Tool-Induced Myopia (TIM), and study it using PYMATH, a benchmark of 1,679 competition-level mathematical problems for which Python code is helpful but not sufficient. We further develop a multi-dimensional evaluation suite to quantify reasoning degradation in TaLMs relative to their non-tool counterparts. Our findings reveal that while TaLMs achieve up to a 19.3 percentage point gain in final-answer accuracy, their reasoning behavior consistently deteriorates (e.g., non-tool LLMs win up to 41.5% more often in pairwise comparisons of the reasoning process). This degradation intensifies with tool use; the more frequently a model invokes tools, the less coherent its reasoning becomes. Moreover, tool use shifts errors from arithmetic mistakes toward global reasoning failures (logic, assumption, creativity); with TIM present in ~55% of high-risk cases. Finally, we propose a preference-optimization-based framework that realigns TaLMs to use tools as assistive evidence, improving both final-answer accuracy and reasoning depth under tool use. Codes and data are available at: https://github.com/megagonlabs/TIM.

Effective clinical decision-making depends on iterative, multimodal reasoning across diverse sources of evidence. The recent emergence of multimodal reasoning models has significantly transformed the landscape of solving complex tasks. Although such models have achieved notable success in mathematics and science, their application to medical domains remains underexplored. In this work, we propose \textit{MedE$^2$}, a two-stage post-training pipeline that elicits and then enhances multimodal reasoning for medical domains. In Stage-I, we fine-tune models using 2,000 text-only data samples containing precisely orchestrated reasoning demonstrations to elicit reasoning behaviors. In Stage-II, we further enhance the model's reasoning capabilities using 1,500 rigorously curated multimodal medical cases, aligning model reasoning outputs with our proposed multimodal medical reasoning preference. Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy and reliability of \textit{MedE$^2$} in improving the reasoning performance of medical multimodal models. Notably, models trained with \textit{MedE$^2$} consistently outperform baselines across multiple medical multimodal benchmarks. Additional validation on larger models and under inference-time scaling further confirms the robustness and practical utility of our approach.

Large recommender models have extended LLMs as powerful recommenders via encoding or item generation, and recent breakthroughs in LLM reasoning synchronously motivate the exploration of reasoning in recommendation. In this work, we propose R$^2$ec, a unified large recommender model with intrinsic reasoning capability. R$^2$ec introduces a dual-head architecture that supports both reasoning chain generation and efficient item prediction in a single model, significantly reducing inference latency. To overcome the lack of annotated reasoning data, we design RecPO, a reinforcement learning framework that optimizes reasoning and recommendation jointly with a novel fused reward mechanism. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate that R$^2$ec outperforms traditional, LLM-based, and reasoning-augmented recommender baselines, while further analyses validate its competitive efficiency among conventional LLM-based recommender baselines and strong adaptability to diverse recommendation scenarios. Code and checkpoints available at https://github.com/YRYangang/RRec.

Zero Reinforcement Learning (Zero-RL) has proven to be an effective approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by directly applying reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards on pretrained models, without the need for a supervised fine-tuning phase. However, current research on zero-RL primarily focuses on domains with easily verifiable reward signals, such as mathematics, programming, and other reasoning tasks. The challenge of eliciting reasoning abilities in more diverse scenarios, where verification is not straightforward, remains underexplored. To address this gap, we propose a novel zero-RL paradigm designed to improve a model's reasoning ability across both verifiable and non-verifiable domains. By combining verifiable rewards with a generative reward model, we conduct multi-task zero-RL training across both domains, facilitating the transfer of reasoning capabilities between them. Furthermore, to mitigate reward hacking in the generative reward model, we design a smooth length penalty that encourages the generation of more comprehensive thinking tokens in general domains. Experimental results on Qwen3-8B-Base and Qwen3-14B-Base demonstrate that our approach achieves superior reasoning performance, not only on tasks requiring extensive reasoning but also on more general tasks.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of thinking language models that generate extensive internal reasoning chains before producing responses. While these models achieve improved performance, controlling their reasoning processes remains challenging. This work presents a steering approach for thinking LLMs by analyzing and manipulating specific reasoning behaviors in DeepSeek-R1-Distill models. Through a systematic experiment on 500 tasks across 10 diverse categories, we identify several reasoning behaviors exhibited by thinking models, including expressing uncertainty, generating examples for hypothesis validation, and backtracking in reasoning chains. We demonstrate that these behaviors are mediated by linear directions in the model's activation space and can be controlled using steering vectors. By extracting and applying these vectors, we provide a method to modulate specific aspects of the model's reasoning process, such as its tendency to backtrack or express uncertainty. Our approach offers practical tools for steering reasoning processes in thinking models in a controlled and interpretable manner. We validate our steering method using three DeepSeek-R1-Distill models, demonstrating consistent control across different model architectures.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities under the widely adopted SFT+RLVR paradigm, which first performs Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on human-annotated reasoning trajectories (rationales) to establish initial reasoning behaviors, then applies Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to optimize the model using verifiable signals without golden rationales. However, annotating high-quality rationales for the SFT stage remains prohibitively expensive. This paper investigates when and how rationale annotation costs can be substantially reduced without compromising reasoning performance. We identify a broad class of problems, termed patterned reasoning tasks, where reasoning follows a fixed, procedural strategy consistent across instances. Although instances vary in content such as domain knowledge, factual information, or numeric values, the solution derives from applying a shared reasoning pattern. We argue that the success of SFT+RLVR on such tasks primarily stems from its ability to enable models to internalize these reasoning patterns. Using numerical semantic matching as a representative task, we provide both causal and behavioral evidence showing that reasoning patterns rather than the quantity or quality of rationales are the key determinant of performance. Building on these insights, we propose Pattern-Aware LLMs as Rationale AnnOtators (PARO), a simple yet effective framework that enables LLMs to generate rationales aligned with task-specific reasoning patterns without requiring human rationale annotations. Experiments show that PARO-generated rationales achieve comparable SFT+RLVR performance to human rationales that are 10 times larger. These results suggest that large-scale human rationale annotations can be replaced with LLM-based automatic annotations requiring only limited human supervision over reasoning patterns.