Machine learning systems perform well on pattern matching tasks, but their ability to perform algorithmic or logical reasoning is not well understood. One important reasoning capability is algorithmic extrapolation, in which models trained only on small/simple reasoning problems can synthesize complex strategies for large/complex problems at test time. Algorithmic extrapolation can be achieved through recurrent systems, which can be iterated many times to solve difficult reasoning problems. We observe that this approach fails to scale to highly complex problems because behavior degenerates when many iterations are applied -- an issue we refer to as overthinking. We propose a recall architecture that keeps an explicit copy of the problem instance in memory so that it cannot be forgotten. We also employ a progressive training routine that prevents the model from learning behaviors that are specific to iteration number and instead pushes it to learn behaviors that can be repeated indefinitely. These innovations prevent the overthinking problem, and enable recurrent systems to solve extremely hard extrapolation tasks.

The rapid escalation from elementary school-level to frontier problems of the difficulty for LLM benchmarks in recent years have weaved a miracle for researchers that we are only inches away from surpassing human intelligence. However, is the LLMs' remarkable reasoning ability indeed comes from true intelligence by human standards, or are they simply reciting solutions witnessed during training at an Internet level? To study this problem, we propose RoR-Bench, a novel, multi-modal benchmark for detecting LLM's recitation behavior when asked simple reasoning problems but with conditions subtly shifted, and conduct empirical analysis on our benchmark. Surprisingly, we found existing cutting-edge LLMs unanimously exhibits extremely severe recitation behavior; by changing one phrase in the condition, top models such as OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 can suffer 60 percent performance loss on elementary school-level arithmetic and reasoning problems. Such findings are a wake-up call to the LLM community that compels us to re-evaluate the true intelligence level of cutting-edge LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant progress in reasoning tasks. However, recent studies show that transformers and LLMs fail catastrophically once reasoning problems exceed modest complexity. We revisit these findings through the lens of large reasoning models (LRMs) -- LLMs fine-tuned with incentives for step-by-step argumentation and self-verification. LRM performance on graph and reasoning benchmarks such as NLGraph seem extraordinary, with some even claiming they are capable of generalized reasoning and innovation in reasoning-intensive fields such as mathematics, physics, medicine, and law. However, by more carefully scaling the complexity of reasoning problems, we show existing benchmarks actually have limited complexity. We develop a new dataset, the Deep Reasoning Dataset (DeepRD), along with a generative process for producing unlimited examples of scalable complexity. We use this dataset to evaluate model performance on graph connectivity and natural language proof planning. We find that the performance of LRMs drop abruptly at sufficient complexity and do not generalize. We also relate our LRM results to the distributions of the complexities of large, real-world knowledge graphs, interaction graphs, and proof datasets. We find the majority of real-world examples fall inside the LRMs' success regime, yet the long tails expose substantial failure potential. Our analysis highlights the near-term utility of LRMs while underscoring the need for new methods that generalize beyond the complexity of examples in the training distribution.

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) are two prominent post-training paradigms for refining the capabilities and aligning the behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing approaches that integrate SFT and RL often face the risk of disrupting established response patterns and inducing overfitting to expert data. To address this, we present a novel investigation into the unified view of SFT and RL through an off-policy versus on-policy lens. We propose CHORD, a framework for Controllable Harmonization of On- and Off-Policy Reinforcement Learning via Dynamic Weighting, which reframes SFT not as a separate stage but as a dynamically weighted auxiliary objective within the on-policy RL process. Based on an analysis of off-policy expert data's influence at both holistic and granular levels, we incorporate a dual-control mechanism in CHORD. Specifically, the framework first employs a global coefficient to holistically guide the transition from off-policy imitation to on-policy exploration, and then applies a token-wise weighting function that enables granular learning from the expert, which promotes on-policy exploration and mitigates disruption from off-policy data. We conduct extensive experiments on mathematical reasoning problems and practical tool-use tasks, providing empirical evidence that CHORD achieves a stable and efficient learning process. By effectively harmonizing off-policy expert data with on-policy exploration, CHORD demonstrates significant improvements over baselines. We release the implementation at https://github.com/modelscope/Trinity-RFT/tree/main/examples/mix_chord to inspire further research.

Neuro-symbolic NLP methods aim to leverage the complementary strengths of large language models and formal logical solvers. However, current approaches are mostly static in nature, i.e., the integration of a target solver is predetermined at design time, hindering the ability to employ diverse formal inference strategies. To address this, we introduce an adaptive, multi-paradigm, neuro-symbolic inference framework that: (1) automatically identifies formal reasoning strategies from problems expressed in natural language; and (2) dynamically selects and applies specialized formal logical solvers via autoformalization interfaces. Extensive experiments on individual and multi-paradigm reasoning tasks support the following conclusions: LLMs are effective at predicting the necessary formal reasoning strategies with an accuracy above 90 percent. This enables flexible integration with formal logical solvers, resulting in our framework outperforming competing baselines by 27 percent and 6 percent compared to GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3.1, respectively. Moreover, adaptive reasoning can even positively impact pure LLM methods, yielding gains of 10, 5, and 6 percent on zero-shot, CoT, and symbolic CoT settings with GPT-4o. Finally, although smaller models struggle with adaptive neuro-symbolic reasoning, post-training offers a viable path to improvement. Overall, this work establishes the foundations for adaptive LLM-symbolic reasoning, offering a path forward for unifying material and formal inferences on heterogeneous reasoning challenges.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve astonishing results on a wide range of tasks. However, their formal reasoning ability still lags behind. A promising approach is Neurosymbolic LLM reasoning. It works by using LLMs as translators from natural to formal languages and symbolic solvers for deriving correct results. Still, the contributing factors to the success of Neurosymbolic LLM reasoning remain unclear. This paper demonstrates that one previously overlooked factor is the choice of the formal language. We introduce the intermediate language challenge: selecting a suitable formal language for neurosymbolic reasoning. By comparing four formal languages across three datasets and seven LLMs, we show that the choice of formal language affects both syntactic and semantic reasoning capabilities. We also discuss the varying effects across different LLMs.