Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of AI, demonstrating unprecedented capacity across various tasks.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate strong performance on complex tasks but often suffer from excessive verbosity, known as "overthinking." Existing solutions via reinforcement learning (RL) typically penalize generated tokens to promote conciseness. However, these methods encounter two challenges: responses with fewer tokens do not always correspond to fewer reasoning steps, and models may develop hacking behavior in later stages of training by discarding reasoning steps to minimize token usage. In this work, we introduce \textbf{Step Pruner (SP)}, an RL framework that steers LRMs toward more efficient reasoning by favoring compact reasoning steps. Our step-aware reward function prioritizes correctness while imposing penalties for redundant steps, and withholds rewards for incorrect responses to prevent the reinforcement of erroneous reasoning. Moreover, we propose a dynamic stopping mechanism: when the model's output no longer shortens, training is halted to prevent hacking behavior caused by the merging of steps. Extensive experiments across four reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SP achieves state-of-the-art accuracy while significantly reducing response length. For instance, on AIME24, SP reduces token usage by \textbf{69.7\%}.

Diffusion-based large language models (dLLMs) have recently gained significant attention for their exceptional performance and inherent potential for parallel decoding. Existing frameworks further enhance its inference efficiency by enabling KV caching. However, its bidirectional attention mechanism necessitates periodic cache refreshes that interleave prefill and decoding phases, both contributing substantial inference cost and constraining achievable speedup. Inspired by the heterogeneous arithmetic intensity of the prefill and decoding phases, we propose ODB-dLLM, a framework that orchestrates dual-boundaries to accelerate dLLM inference. In the prefill phase, we find that the predefined fixed response length introduces heavy yet redundant computational overhead, which affects efficiency. To alleviate this, ODB-dLLM incorporates an adaptive length prediction mechanism that progressively reduces prefill overhead and unnecessary computation. In the decoding phase, we analyze the computational characteristics of dLLMs and propose a dLLM-specific jump-share speculative decoding method to enhance efficiency by reducing the number of decoding iterations. Experimental results demonstrate that ODB-dLLM achieves 46-162x and 2.63-6.30x speedups over the baseline dLLM and Fast-dLLM, respectively, while simultaneously mitigating the accuracy degradation in existing acceleration frameworks.

Large reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex reasoning tasks, yet the excessive length of their chain-of-thought outputs remains a major practical bottleneck due to high computation cost and poor deployability. Existing compression methods have achieved partial success but overlook a crucial phenomenon in the training process -- the entropy conflict. During compression training, entropy decreases, leading to shorter reasoning but limited exploration, while accuracy-oriented objectives increase entropy, lengthening reasoning chains. This can cause the model to get stuck in a local dilemma. Our analysis further reveals the origin of the entropy conflict: many high-entropy tokens are logical connectors that receive larger gradients and are encouraged under the performance objective, while the compression objective simultaneously penalizes these potentially redundant connectors. This opposing pressure creates a direct source of entropy conflict. To address these issues, we adopt an entropy-guided training framework. As entropy descends, the model is guided toward efficient reasoning by encouraging concise thought steps; as entropy rises, exploration is reinforced under the compact reasoning mode to improve robustness. Experiments on six mathematical benchmarks show that our method compresses reasoning length to 20% of the original while maintaining or even surpassing baseline accuracy. Code and models will be released publicly.

While scaling the length of responses at test-time has been shown to markedly improve the reasoning abilities and performance of large language models (LLMs), it often results in verbose outputs and increases inference cost. Prior approaches for efficient test-time scaling, typically using universal budget constraints or query-level length optimization, do not leverage historical information from previous encounters with the same problem during training. We hypothesize that this limits their ability to progressively make solutions more concise over time. To address this, we present History-Aware Policy Optimization (HAPO), which keeps track of a history state (e.g., the minimum length over previously generated correct responses) for each problem. HAPO employs a novel length reward function based on this history state to incentivize the discovery of correct solutions that are more concise than those previously found. Crucially, this reward structure avoids overly penalizing shorter incorrect responses with the goal of facilitating exploration towards more efficient solutions. By combining this length reward with a correctness reward, HAPO jointly optimizes for correctness and efficiency. We use HAPO to train DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, DeepScaleR-1.5B-Preview, and Qwen-2.5-1.5B-Instruct, and evaluate HAPO on several math benchmarks that span various difficulty levels. Experiment results demonstrate that HAPO effectively induces LLMs' concise reasoning abilities, producing length reductions of 33-59% with accuracy drops of only 2-5%.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is widely used to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RLHF-trained reward models often exhibit length bias -- a systematic tendency to favor longer responses by conflating verbosity with quality. We propose a causal framework for analyzing and mitigating length bias in RLHF reward modeling. Central to our approach is a counterfactual data augmentation method that generates response pairs designed to isolate content quality from verbosity. These counterfactual examples are then used to train the reward model, enabling it to assess responses based on content quality independently of verbosity. Specifically, we construct (1) length-divergent pairs with similar content and (2) content-divergent pairs of similar length. Empirical evaluations show that our method reduces length bias in reward assignment and leads to more concise, content-focused outputs from the policy model. These findings demonstrate that the proposed approach effectively reduces length bias and improves the robustness and content sensitivity of reward modeling in RLHF pipelines.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful approach to enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), while its mechanisms are not yet well understood. In this work, we undertake a pioneering exploration of RLVR through the novel perspective of token entropy patterns, comprehensively analyzing how different tokens influence reasoning performance. By examining token entropy patterns in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, we observe that only a small fraction of tokens exhibit high entropy, and these tokens act as critical forks that steer the model toward diverse reasoning pathways. Furthermore, studying how entropy patterns evolve during RLVR training reveals that RLVR largely adheres to the base model's entropy patterns, primarily adjusting the entropy of high-entropy tokens. These findings highlight the significance of high-entropy tokens (i.e., forking tokens) to RLVR. We ultimately improve RLVR by restricting policy gradient updates to forking tokens and uncover a finding even beyond the 80/20 rule: utilizing only 20% of the tokens while maintaining performance comparable to full-gradient updates on the Qwen3-8B base model and significantly surpassing full-gradient updates on the Qwen3-32B (+11.04 on AIME'25 and +7.71 on AIME'24) and Qwen3-14B (+4.79 on AIME'25 and +5.21 on AIME'24) base models, highlighting a strong scaling trend. In contrast, training exclusively on the 80% lowest-entropy tokens leads to a marked decline in performance. These findings indicate that the efficacy of RLVR primarily arises from optimizing the high-entropy tokens that decide reasoning directions. Collectively, our results highlight the potential to understand RLVR through a token-entropy perspective and optimize RLVR by leveraging high-entropy minority tokens to further improve LLM reasoning.

LLMs demonstrate performance comparable to human abilities in complex tasks such as mathematical reasoning, but their robustness in mathematical reasoning under minor input perturbations still lacks systematic investigation. Existing methods generally suffer from limited scalability, weak semantic preservation, and high costs. Therefore, we propose MSCR, an automated adversarial attack method based on multi-source candidate replacement. By combining three information sources including cosine similarity in the embedding space of LLMs, the WordNet dictionary, and contextual predictions from a masked language model, we generate for each word in the input question a set of semantically similar candidates, which are then filtered and substituted one by one to carry out the attack. We conduct large-scale experiments on LLMs using the GSM8K and MATH500 benchmarks. The results show that even a slight perturbation involving only a single word can significantly reduce the accuracy of all models, with the maximum drop reaching 49.89% on GSM8K and 35.40% on MATH500, while preserving the high semantic consistency of the perturbed questions. Further analysis reveals that perturbations not only lead to incorrect outputs but also substantially increase the average response length, which results in more redundant reasoning paths and higher computational resource consumption.

Reinforcement learning-based post-training of large language models (LLMs) has recently gained attention, particularly following the release of DeepSeek R1, which applied GRPO for fine-tuning. Amid the growing hype around improved reasoning abilities attributed to RL post-training, we critically examine the formulation and assumptions underlying these methods. We start by highlighting the popular structural assumptions made in modeling LLM training as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and show how they lead to a degenerate MDP that doesn't quite need the RL/GRPO apparatus. The two critical structural assumptions include (1) making the MDP states be just a concatenation of the actions-with states becoming the context window and the actions becoming the tokens in LLMs and (2) splitting the reward of a state-action trajectory uniformly across the trajectory. Through a comprehensive analysis, we demonstrate that these simplifying assumptions make the approach effectively equivalent to an outcome-driven supervised learning. Our experiments on benchmarks including GSM8K and Countdown using Qwen-2.5 base models show that iterative supervised fine-tuning, incorporating both positive and negative samples, achieves performance comparable to GRPO-based training. We will also argue that the structural assumptions indirectly incentivize the RL to generate longer sequences of intermediate tokens-which in turn feeds into the narrative of "RL generating longer thinking traces." While RL may well be a very useful technique for improving the reasoning abilities of LLMs, our analysis shows that the simplistic structural assumptions made in modeling the underlying MDP render the popular LLM RL frameworks and their interpretations questionable.

Fundamental physics often confronts complex symbolic problems with few guiding exemplars or established principles. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers promise, its typical need for vast datasets to learn from hinders its use in these information-scarce frontiers. We introduce learning at criticality (LaC), a reinforcement learning (RL) scheme that tunes Large Language Models (LLMs) to a sharp learning transition, addressing this information scarcity. At this transition, LLMs achieve peak generalization from minimal data, exemplified by 7-digit base-7 addition -- a test of nontrivial arithmetic reasoning. To elucidate this peak, we analyze a minimal concept-network model (CoNet) designed to capture the essence of how LLMs might link tokens. Trained on a single exemplar, this model also undergoes a sharp learning transition. This transition exhibits hallmarks of a second-order phase transition, notably power-law distributed solution path lengths. At this critical point, the system maximizes a ``critical thinking pattern" crucial for generalization, enabled by the underlying scale-free exploration. This suggests LLMs reach peak performance by operating at criticality, where such explorative dynamics enable the extraction of underlying operational rules. We demonstrate LaC in quantum field theory: an 8B-parameter LLM, tuned to its critical point by LaC using a few exemplars of symbolic Matsubara sums, solves unseen, higher-order problems, significantly outperforming far larger models. LaC thus leverages critical phenomena, a physical principle, to empower AI for complex, data-sparse challenges in fundamental physics.