For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed in both everyday and high-stakes domains, knowing when not to answer is equally critical as answering correctly. Real-world user queries, which can be underspecified, ill-posed, or fundamentally unanswerable, require LLMs to reason about uncertainty and selectively abstain--i.e., refuse to answer definitively. However, abstention remains understudied, without a systematic evaluation framework for modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce AbstentionBench: a large-scale benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets, including questions with unknown answers, underspecification, false premises, subjective interpretations, and outdated information. Evaluating 20 frontier LLMs reveals abstention is an unsolved problem, and one where scaling models is of little use. While recent reasoning LLMs have shown impressive results in complex problem solving, surprisingly, we find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention (by 24% on average), even for math and science domains on which reasoning models are explicitly trained. We find that while a carefully crafted system prompt can boost abstention in practice, it does not resolve models' fundamental inability to reason about uncertainty. We release AbstentionBenchto foster research into advancing LLM reliability.2

Recent language models exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, yet the influence of long-context capacity on reasoning remains underexplored. In this work, we hypothesize that current limitations in reasoning stem, in part, from insufficient long-context capacity, motivated by empirical observations such as i) higher context window length often leads to stronger reasoning performance, and ii) failed reasoning cases resemble failed long-context cases. To test this hypothesis, we examine whether enhancing a model's long-context ability before Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) leads to improved reasoning performance. Specifically, we compared models with identical architectures and fine-tuning data but varying levels of long-context capacity. Our results reveal a consistent trend: models with stronger long-context capacity achieve significantly higher accuracy on reasoning benchmarks after SFT. Notably, these gains persist even on tasks with short input lengths, indicating that long-context training offers generalizable benefits for reasoning performance. These findings suggest that long-context modeling is not just essential for processing lengthy inputs, but also serves as a critical foundation for reasoning. We advocate for treating long-context capacity as a first-class objective in the design of future language models.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) have achieved impressive performance on spatial reasoning benchmarks, yet these evaluations mask critical weaknesses in understanding object interactions. Current benchmarks test high level relationships ('left of,' 'behind', etc.) but ignore fine-grained spatial understanding needed for real world applications: precise 3D localization, physical compatibility between objects, object affordances and multi step spatial planning. In this work, we present BOP-ASK, a novel large scale dataset for object interaction reasoning for both training and benchmarking. Our data generation pipeline leverages 6D object poses from the Benchmark for Object Pose Estimation (BOP) datasets from which we derive fine grained annotations such as grasp poses, referred object poses, path planning trajectories, relative spatial and depth relationships, and object-to-object relationships. BOP-ASK comprises over 150k images and 33M question answer pairs spanning six tasks (four novel), providing a rich resource for training and evaluating VLMs. We evaluate proprietary and open sourced VLMs, and conduct human evaluations on BOP-ASK-core, a contributed test benchmark. We also release BOP-ASK-lab, an out-of-distribution benchmark with images not sourced from BOP, enabling testing of generalization. Our experiments demonstrate that models trained on BOP-ASK outperform baselines and exhibit emergent capabilities such as precise object and grasp pose estimation, trajectory planning, and fine-grained object-centric spatial reasoning in cluttered environments. We will publicly release our datasets and dataset generation pipeline.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks. To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents. However, existing collaboration structures are either predefined or rely on majority voting or round-table debates, which can suppress correct but less dominant agent contributions. Recent approaches model multi-agent systems as graph networks but optimize purely for agent performance, neglecting the quality of interactions. We hypothesize that effective agent communication is crucial for multi-agent reasoning and that debating quality plays a significant role. To address this, we propose $\ours$, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures. Our method defines action spaces and a feedback mechanism that evaluates communication robustness and coherence throughout the debate. The final decision is achieved through a majority vote over all the agents. We assess $\ours$ on various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning, creative writing, scientific reasoning, and numerical sorting. Results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms single-agent prompting methods and state-of-the-art multi-agent frameworks on diverse tasks.

Spoken Language Models (SLMs) are designed to take speech inputs and produce spoken responses. However, current SLMs lack the ability to perform an internal, unspoken thinking process before responding. In contrast, humans typically engage in complex mental reasoning internally, enabling them to communicate ideas clearly and concisely. Thus, integrating an unspoken thought process into SLMs is highly desirable. While naively generating a complete chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning before starting to talk can enable thinking for SLMs, this induces additional latency for the speech response, as the CoT reasoning can be arbitrarily long. To solve this issue, we propose Stitch, a novel generation method that alternates between the generation of unspoken reasoning chunks and spoken response chunks. Since the audio duration of a chunk of spoken response is much longer than the time to generate the tokens in a chunk of spoken response, we use the remaining free time to generate the unspoken reasoning tokens. When a chunk of audio is played to the user, the model continues to generate the next unspoken reasoning chunk, achieving simultaneous thinking and talking. Remarkably, Stitch matches the latency of baselines that cannot generate unspoken CoT by design while outperforming those baselines by 15% on math reasoning datasets; Stitch also performs equally well on non-reasoning datasets as those baseline models. Some animations and demonstrations are on the project page: https://d223302.github.io/STITCH.

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed in both everyday and high-stakes domains, knowing when not to answer is equally critical as answering correctly. Real-world user queries, which can be underspecified, ill-posed, or fundamentally unanswerable, require LLMs to reason about uncertainty and selectively abstain -- i.e., refuse to answer definitively. However, abstention remains understudied, without a systematic evaluation framework for modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce AbstentionBench, a large-scale benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets, including questions with unknown answers, underspecification, false premises, subjective interpretations, and outdated information. Evaluating 20 frontier LLMs reveals abstention is an unsolved problem, and one where scaling models is of little use. While recent reasoning LLMs have shown impressive results in complex problem solving, surprisingly, we find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention (by $24\%$ on average), even for math and science domains on which reasoning models are explicitly trained. We find that while a carefully crafted system prompt can boost abstention in practice, it does not resolve models' fundamental inability to reason about uncertainty. We release AbstentionBench to foster research into advancing LLM reliability.

Recent language models exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, yet the influence of long-context capacity on reasoning remains underexplored. In this work, we hypothesize that current limitations in reasoning stem, in part, from insufficient long-context capacity, motivated by empirical observations such as (1) higher context window length often leads to stronger reasoning performance, and (2) failed reasoning cases resemble failed long-context cases. To test this hypothesis, we examine whether enhancing a model's long-context ability before Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) leads to improved reasoning performance. Specifically, we compared models with identical architectures and fine-tuning data but varying levels of long-context capacity. Our results reveal a consistent trend: models with stronger long-context capacity achieve significantly higher accuracy on reasoning benchmarks after SFT. Notably, these gains persist even on tasks with short input lengths, indicating that long-context training offers generalizable benefits for reasoning performance. These findings suggest that long-context modeling is not just essential for processing lengthy inputs, but also serves as a critical foundation for reasoning. We advocate for treating long-context capacity as a first-class objective in the design of future language models.

Recent advances in large language models have demonstrated that Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning data distilled from large reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek R1) can effectively transfer reasoning capabilities to non-reasoning models. However, models fine-tuned with this approach inherit the "overthinking" problem from teacher models, producing verbose and redundant reasoning chains during inference. To address this challenge, we propose Long-Short Chain-of-Thought Mixture Supervised Fine-Tuning (LS-Mixture SFT), which combines long CoT reasoning dataset with their short counterparts obtained through structure-preserved rewriting. Our experiments demonstrate that models trained using the LS-Mixture SFT method, compared to those trained with direct SFT, achieved an average accuracy improvement of 2.3% across various benchmarks while substantially reducing model response length by approximately 47.61%. This work offers an approach to endow non-reasoning models with reasoning capabilities through supervised fine-tuning while avoiding the inherent overthinking problems inherited from teacher models, thereby enabling efficient reasoning in the fine-tuned models.

While large models pre-trained on high-quality data exhibit excellent performance across various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning (e.g. GSM8k, MultiArith), specializing smaller models to excel at mathematical reasoning remains a challenging problem. Common approaches to address this challenge include knowledge distillation, where smaller student models learn from large pre-trained teacher models, and data augmentation, such as rephrasing questions. Despite these efforts, smaller models struggle with arithmetic computations, leading to errors in mathematical reasoning. In this work, we focus on leveraging a programmatically generated arithmetic dataset to enhance the reasoning capabilities of smaller models. We investigate two key approaches to incorporate this dataset -- (1) intermediate fine-tuning, where a model is fine-tuned on the arithmetic dataset before being trained on a reasoning dataset, and (2) integrating the arithmetic dataset into the instruction-tuning mixture, allowing the model to learn arithmetic skills alongside general instruction-following abilities. Our experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that incorporating an arithmetic dataset, whether through targeted fine-tuning or within the instruction-tuning mixture, enhances the models' arithmetic capabilities, which in turn improves their mathematical reasoning performance.

The reasoning steps generated by LLMs might be incomplete, as they mimic logical leaps common in everyday communication found in their pre-training data: underlying rationales are frequently left implicit (unstated). To address this challenge, we introduce RATIONALYST, a model for process-supervision of reasoning based on pre-training on a vast collection of rationale annotations extracted from unlabeled data. We extract 79k rationales from web-scale unlabelled dataset (the Pile) and a combination of reasoning datasets with minimal human intervention. This web-scale pre-training for reasoning allows RATIONALYST to consistently generalize across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematical, commonsense, scientific, and logical reasoning. Fine-tuned from LLaMa-3-8B, RATIONALYST improves the accuracy of reasoning by an average of 3.9% on 7 representative reasoning benchmarks. It also demonstrates superior performance compared to significantly larger verifiers like GPT-4 and similarly sized models fine-tuned on matching training sets.