While the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in analytical tasks such as mathematics and code generation, their utility for abstractive summarization remains widely assumed but largely unverified. To bridge this gap, we first tailor general reasoning strategies to the summarization domain. We then conduct a systematic, large scale comparative study of 8 reasoning strategies and 3 Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) across 8 diverse datasets, assessing both summary quality and faithfulness. Our findings show that reasoning is not a universal solution and its effectiveness is highly dependent on the specific strategy and context. Specifically, we observe a trade-off between summary quality and factual faithfulness: explicit reasoning strategies tend to improve fluency at the expense of factual grounding, while implicit reasoning in LRMs exhibits the inverse pattern. Furthermore, increasing an LRM's internal reasoning budget does not improve, and can even hurt, factual consistency, suggesting that effective summarization demands faithful compression rather than creative over-thinking.

Reasoning based on Large Language Models (LLMs) has garnered increasing attention due to outstanding performance of these models in mathematical and complex logical tasks. Beginning with the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting technique, numerous reasoning methods have emerged that decompose problems into smaller, sequential steps (or thoughts). However, existing reasoning models focus on conventional problem-solving and do not necessarily generate creative solutions by ``creative reasoning''. In domains where the solution space is expansive and conventional solutions are suboptimal, such as drug discovery or business strategization, creative reasoning to discover innovative solutions is crucial. To address this gap, first we introduce a computational framework for creative reasoning inspired by established cognitive science principles. With this framework, we propose three core creative reasoning paradigms, namely, \textit{combinational}, \textit{exploratory}, and \textit{transformative} reasoning, where each offers specific directions for systematic exploration of the universe of thoughts to generate creative solutions. Next, to materialize this framework using LLMs, we introduce the \textit{Universe of Thoughts} (or \textit{UoT}, for short), a novel set of methods to implement the aforementioned three creative processes. Finally, we introduce three novel tasks that necessitate creative problem-solving, along with an evaluation benchmark to assess creativity from three orthogonal perspectives: feasibility as constraint, and utility and novelty as metrics. With a comparative analysis against the state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning techniques as well as representative commercial models with reasoning capability, we show that UoT demonstrates superior performance in creative reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting achieve strong reasoning but often produce unnecessarily long explanations, increasing cost and sometimes reducing accuracy. Fair comparison of efficiency-oriented approaches is hindered by fragmented evaluation practices. We introduce EffiReason-Bench, a unified benchmark for rigorous cross-paradigm evaluation of efficient reasoning methods across three categories: Reasoning Blueprints, Dynamic Execution, and Post-hoc Refinement. To enable step-by-step evaluation, we construct verified CoT annotations for CommonsenseQA and LogiQA via a pipeline that enforces standardized reasoning structures, comprehensive option-wise analysis, and human verification. We evaluate 7 methods across 6 open-source LLMs (1B-70B) on 4 datasets spanning mathematics, commonsense, and logic, and propose the E3-Score, a principled metric inspired by economic trade-off modeling that provides smooth, stable evaluation without discontinuities or heavy reliance on heuristics. Experiments show that no single method universally dominates; optimal strategies depend on backbone scale, task complexity, and architecture.

Selecting an appropriate reasoning method for a given query remains a key challenge in language model generation. Existing approaches typically generate multiple candidate responses and use an aggregation strategy to select the output answer, often assuming that more candidate answers yield higher accuracy. We revisit this assumption through a rigorous theoretical analysis, deriving accuracy bounds for standard aggregation methods under fixed generation distributions and candidate sizes. Building on these insights, we introduce EPIC, an Ensemble Planning with Contrastive learning framework to learn a shared representation space that captures both model reasoning abilities and query-method compatibility. EPIC incorporates our probability bounds as a regularizer in a utility-driven optimization that balances accuracy and computational cost. Experiments on diverse mathematical reasoning tasks show that EPIC consistently selects optimal reasoning methods, improving accuracy while reducing computational overhead. Our code can be found at https://github.com/nguyenngocbaocmt02/EPIC.

In recent years, end-to-end Large Language Model (LLM) technology has shown substantial advantages across various domains. As critical system software and infrastructure, compilers are responsible for transforming source code into target code. While LLMs have been leveraged to assist in compiler development and maintenance, their potential as an end-to-end compiler remains largely unexplored. This paper explores the feasibility of LLM as a Compiler (LaaC) and its future directions. We designed the CompilerEval dataset and framework specifically to evaluate the capabilities of mainstream LLMs in source code comprehension and assembly code generation. In the evaluation, we analyzed various errors, explored multiple methods to improve LLM-generated code, and evaluated cross-platform compilation capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that LLMs exhibit basic capabilities as compilers but currently achieve low compilation success rates. By optimizing prompts, scaling up the model, and incorporating reasoning methods, the quality of assembly code generated by LLMs can be significantly enhanced. Based on these findings, we maintain an optimistic outlook for LaaC and propose practical architectural designs and future research directions. We believe that with targeted training, knowledge-rich prompts, and specialized infrastructure, LaaC has the potential to generate high-quality assembly code and drive a paradigm shift in the field of compilation.

Autonomous inspection systems are essential for ensuring the performance and longevity of industrial assets. Recently, agentic frameworks have demonstrated significant potential for automating inspection workflows but have been limited to digital tasks. Their application to physical assets in real-world environments, however, remains underexplored. In this work, our contributions are two-fold: first, we propose a hierarchical agentic framework for autonomous drone control, and second, a reasoning methodology for individual function executions which we refer to as ReActEval. Our framework focuses on visual inspection tasks in indoor industrial settings, such as interpreting industrial readouts or inspecting equipment. It employs a multi-agent system comprising a head agent and multiple worker agents, each controlling a single drone. The head agent performs high-level planning and evaluates outcomes, while worker agents implement ReActEval to reason over and execute low-level actions. Operating entirely in natural language, ReActEval follows a plan, reason, act, evaluate cycle, enabling drones to handle tasks ranging from simple navigation (e.g., flying forward 10 meters and land) to complex high-level tasks (e.g., locating and reading a pressure gauge). The evaluation phase serves as a feedback and/or replanning stage, ensuring actions align with user objectives while preventing undesirable outcomes. We evaluate the framework in a simulated environment with two worker agents, assessing performance qualitatively and quantitatively based on task completion across varying complexity levels and workflow efficiency. By leveraging natural language processing for agent communication, our approach offers a novel, flexible, and user-accessible alternative to traditional drone-based solutions, enabling autonomous problem-solving for industrial inspection without extensive user intervention.

Cognitive Reframing, a core element of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), helps individuals reinterpret negative experiences by finding positive meaning. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated improved performance through reasoning-based strategies. This inspires a promising direction of leveraging the reasoning capabilities of LLMs to improve CBT and mental reframing by simulating the process of critical thinking, potentially enabling more effective recognition, generation, and reframing of cognitive distortions. In this work, we investigate the role of various reasoning methods, including pre-trained reasoning LLMs and augmented reasoning strategies such as CoT and self-consistency in enhancing LLMs' ability to perform cognitive reframing tasks. We find that augmented reasoning methods, even when applied to "outdated" LLMs like GPT-3.5, consistently outperform state-of-the-art pretrained reasoning models on recognizing, generating and reframing unhelpful thoughts.

Intelligence is understood as the ability to create novel skills that allow to achieve goals under previously unknown conditions. To this end, intelligence utilises reasoning methods such as deduction, induction and abduction as well as other methods such as abstraction and classification to develop a world model. The methods are applied to indirect and incomplete representations of the world, which are obtained through perception, for example, and which do not depict the world but only correspond to it. Due to these limitations and the uncertain and contingent nature of reasoning, the world model is constructivist. Its value is functionally determined by its viability, i.e., its potential to achieve the desired goals. In consequence, meaning is assigned to representations by attributing them a function that makes it possible to achieve a goal. This representational and functional conception of intelligence enables a naturalistic interpretation that does not presuppose mental features, such as intentionality and consciousness, which are regarded as independent of intelligence. Based on a phenomenological analysis, it is shown that AGI can gain a more fundamental access to the world than humans, although it is limited by the No Free Lunch theorems, which require assumptions to be made.

Combining multiple perceptual inputs and performing combinatorial reasoning in complex scenarios is a sophisticated cognitive function in humans. With advancements in multi-modal large language models, recent benchmarks tend to evaluate visual understanding across multiple images. However, they often overlook the necessity of combinatorial reasoning across multiple perceptual information. To explore the ability of advanced models to integrate multiple perceptual inputs for combinatorial reasoning in complex scenarios, we introduce two benchmarks: Clue-Visual Question Answering (CVQA), with three task types to assess visual comprehension and synthesis, and Clue of Password-Visual Question Answering (CPVQA), with two task types focused on accurate interpretation and application of visual data. For our benchmarks, we present three plug-and-play approaches: utilizing model input for reasoning, enhancing reasoning through minimum margin decoding with randomness generation, and retrieving semantically relevant visual information for effective data integration. The combined results reveal current models' poor performance on combinatorial reasoning benchmarks, even the state-of-the-art (SOTA) closed-source model achieves only 33.04% accuracy on CVQA, and drops to 7.38% on CPVQA. Notably, our approach improves the performance of models on combinatorial reasoning, with a 22.17% boost on CVQA and 9.40% on CPVQA over the SOTA closed-source model, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing combinatorial reasoning with multiple perceptual inputs in complex scenarios. The code will be publicly available.

Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning processes are challenging to analyze due to their complexity and the lack of organized visualization tools. We present ReasonGraph, a web-based platform for visualizing and analyzing LLM reasoning processes. It supports both sequential and tree-based reasoning methods while integrating with major LLM providers and over fifty state-of-the-art models. ReasonGraph incorporates an intuitive UI with meta reasoning method selection, configurable visualization parameters, and a modular framework that facilitates efficient extension. Our evaluation shows high parsing reliability, efficient processing, and strong usability across various downstream applications. By providing a unified visualization framework, ReasonGraph reduces cognitive load in analyzing complex reasoning paths, improves error detection in logical processes, and enables more effective development of LLM-based applications. The platform is open-source, promoting accessibility and reproducibility in LLM reasoning analysis.