Automated reasoning with unstructured natural text is a key requirement for many potential applications of NLP and for developing robust AI systems. Recently, Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated complex reasoning capacities even without any finetuning. However, existing evaluation for automated reasoning assumes access to a consistent and coherent set of information over which models reason. When reasoning in the real-world, the available information is frequently inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore models need to be equipped with a strategy to resolve such conflicts when they arise. One widely-applicable way of resolving conflicts is to impose preferences over information sources (e.g., based on source credibility or information recency) and adopt the source with higher preference. In this paper, we formulate the problem of reasoning with contradictory information guided by preferences over sources as the classical problem of defeasible reasoning, and develop a dataset called BoardgameQA for measuring the reasoning capacity of LMs in this setting. BoardgameQA also incorporates reasoning with implicit background knowledge, to better reflect reasoning problems in downstream applications. We benchmark various LMs on BoardgameQA and the results reveal a significant gap in the reasoning capacity of state-of-the-art LMs on this problem, showing that reasoning with conflicting information does not surface out-of-the-box in LMs. While performance can be improved with finetuning, it nevertheless remains poor.

Recent advances in large language model (LLM) reasoning, led by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), have inspired self-play post-training, where models improve by generating and solving their own problems. While self-play has shown strong in-domain and out-of-domain gains, the mechanisms behind these improvements remain poorly understood. In this work, we analyze the training dynamics of self-play through the lens of the Absolute Zero Reasoner, comparing it against RLVR and supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Our study examines parameter update sparsity, entropy dynamics of token distributions, and alternative proposer reward functions. We further connect these dynamics to reasoning performance using pass@k evaluations. Together, our findings clarify how self-play differs from other post-training strategies, highlight its inherent limitations, and point toward future directions for improving LLM math reasoning through self-play.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a central paradigm for training large language models (LLMs) in reasoning tasks. Yet recent studies question RL's ability to incentivize reasoning capacity beyond the base model. This raises a key challenge: how can RL be adapted to solve harder reasoning problems more effectively? To address this challenge, we propose a simple yet effective strategy via Question Augmentation: introduce partial solutions during training to reduce problem difficulty and provide more informative learning signals. Our method, QuestA, when applied during RL training on math reasoning tasks, not only improves pass@1 but also pass@k-particularly on problems where standard RL struggles to make progress. This enables continual improvement over strong open-source models such as DeepScaleR and OpenMath Nemotron, further enhancing their reasoning capabilities. We achieve new state-of-the-art results on math benchmarks using 1.5B-parameter models: 72.50% (+10.73%) on AIME24, 62.29% (+12.79%) on AIME25, and 41.67% (+10.11%) on HMMT25. Code, data and model are available at https://github.com/foreverlasting1202/QuestA.

Previous study suggest that powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) trained with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) only refines reasoning path without improving the reasoning capacity in math tasks while supervised-finetuning(SFT) with distillation can. We study this from the view of Scientific information extraction (SciIE) where LLMs and reasoning LLMs underperforms small Bert-based models. SciIE require both the reasoning and memorization. We argue that both SFT and RLVR can refine the reasoning path and improve reasoning capacity in a simple way based on SciIE. We propose two-stage training with 1. MimicSFT, using structured reasoning templates without needing high-quality chain-of-thought data, 2. R$^2$GRPO with relevance and rule-induced rewards. Experiments on scientific IE benchmarks show that both methods can improve the reasoning capacity. R$^2$GRPO with mimicSFT surpasses baseline LLMs and specialized supervised models in relation extraction. Our code is available at https://github.com/ranlislz/R2GRPO.

Increasing attention has been placed on improving the reasoning capacities of multi-modal large language models (MLLMs). As the cornerstone for AI agents that function in the physical realm, video-based visual-spatial intelligence (VSI) emerges as one of the most pivotal reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. This work conducts a first, in-depth study on improving the visual-spatial reasoning of MLLMs via R1-Zero-like training. Technically, we first identify that the visual-spatial reasoning capacities of small- to medium-sized Qwen2-VL models cannot be activated via Chain of Thought (CoT) prompts. We then incorporate GRPO training for improved visual-spatial reasoning, using the carefully curated VSI-100k dataset, following DeepSeek-R1-Zero. During the investigation, we identify the necessity to keep the KL penalty (even with a small value) in GRPO. With just 120 GPU hours, our vsGRPO-2B model, fine-tuned from Qwen2-VL-2B, can outperform the base model by 12.1% and surpass GPT-4o. Moreover, our vsGRPO-7B model, fine-tuned from Qwen2-VL-7B, achieves performance comparable to that of the best open-source model LLaVA-NeXT-Video-72B. Additionally, we compare vsGRPO to supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization baselines and observe strong performance superiority. The code and dataset will be available soon.

Automated reasoning with unstructured natural text is a key requirement for many potential applications of NLP and for developing robust AI systems. Recently, Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated complex reasoning capacities even without any finetuning. However, existing evaluation for automated reasoning assumes access to a consistent and coherent set of information over which models reason. When reasoning in the real-world, the available information is frequently inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore models need to be equipped with a strategy to resolve such conflicts when they arise. One widely-applicable way of resolving conflicts is to impose preferences over information sources (e.g., based on source credibility or information recency) and adopt the source with higher preference.

So I don't see any risk associated with open sourcing models.

Chain of thought finetuning (cot-finetuning) aims to endow small language models (SLM) with reasoning ability to improve their performance towards specific tasks by allowing them to imitate the reasoning procedure of large language models (LLM) beyond simply predicting the answers. Most existing cot-finetuning methods adopt a pre-thinking mechanism, allowing the SLM to generate a rationale before providing an answer. This mechanism enables SLM to analyze and think about complex questions, but it also makes answer correctness highly sensitive to minor errors in rationale. Therefore, we propose a robust post-thinking mechanism to generate answers before rationale. Thanks to this answer-first setting, 1) the answer can escape from the adverse effects caused by minor errors in the rationale; 2) the rationale serves as an error amplifier to the answer, which makes the SLM focus on learning hard samples; 3) the inferring efficiency can also benefit from the setting since users can stop the generation right after answers are outputted when inference is conducted. However, although the post-thinking mechanism brings many advantages and improves the overall performance of SLM on specific tasks, it may lose the ability to think about the questions and decompose complex questions into simple sub-questions compared to pre-thinking mechanism. Therefore, a plug-and-play adaptive-thinking mechanism is proposed with the aid of the soft prompt tuning to integrate the merits of the pre-thinking mechanism and post-thinking mechanism, in which a perception module is introduced to adaptively prompt SLM answer or think first based on perceiving the complexity of the questions. Extensive experiments are conducted across 12 reasoning tasks and 2 representative language models to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed mechanism.

Instruction Fine-Tuning (IFT) significantly enhances the zero-shot capabilities of pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs). While coding data is known to boost reasoning abilities during LLM pretraining, its role in activating internal reasoning capacities during IFT remains understudied. This paper investigates a key question: How does coding data impact LLMs' reasoning capacities during the IFT stage? To explore this, we thoroughly examine the impact of coding data across different coding data proportions, model families, sizes, and reasoning domains, from various perspectives. Specifically, we create three IFT datasets with increasing coding data proportions, fine-tune six LLM backbones across different families and scales on these datasets, evaluate the tuned models' performance across twelve tasks in three reasoning domains, and analyze the outcomes from three broad-to-granular perspectives: overall, domain-level, and task-specific. Our holistic analysis provides valuable insights in each perspective. First, coding data tuning enhances the overall reasoning capabilities of LLMs across different model families and scales. Moreover, the effect of coding data varies among different domains but shows consistent trends across model families and scales within each domain. Additionally, coding data generally yields comparable task-specific benefits across different model families, with the optimal coding data proportions in IFT datasets being task-specific.

Remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in a variety of tasks brings forth many opportunities as well as challenges of utilizing them in production settings. Towards practical adoption of LLMs, multi-agent systems hold great promise to augment, integrate, and orchestrate LLMs in the larger context of enterprise platforms that use existing proprietary data and models to tackle complex real-world tasks. Despite the tremendous success of these systems, current approaches rely on narrow, single-focus objectives for optimization and evaluation, often overlooking potential constraints in real-world scenarios, including restricted budgets, resources and time. Furthermore, interpreting, analyzing, and debugging these systems requires different components to be evaluated in relation to one another. This demand is currently not feasible with existing methodologies. In this postion paper, we introduce the concept of reasoning capacity as a unifying criterion to enable integration of constraints during optimization and establish connections among different components within the system, which also enable a more holistic and comprehensive approach to evaluation. We present a formal definition of reasoning capacity and illustrate its utility in identifying limitations within each component of the system. We then argue how these limitations can be addressed with a self-reflective process wherein human-feedback is used to alleviate shortcomings in reasoning and enhance overall consistency of the system.