Chart reasoning agents are increasingly used to extract actionable insights in critical domains, achieving state-of-the-art performance on multiple benchmarks. Yet, high benchmark accuracy alone is insufficient for deployment, where stakeholders must be able to audit and verify how a model reaches its answer. Existing LVLM-based chart agents produce either answer-only predictions or free-form rationales that are hard to verify, obscuring whether an error arose from misreading the chart, extracting a wrong value, or miscomputing. We propose Chart-RVR, a reinforcement learning framework for training monitorable chart agents with verifiable process rewards. Chart-RVR decomposes chart reasoning into three auditable blocks: Structure, identifying the chart type; Evidence, reconstructing the underlying data table in JSON; and Derivation, exposing the stepwise trace that computes the answer. Across six in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks, Chart-RVR attains state-of-the-art accuracy among comparable-sized LVLMs. Beyond accuracy, we assess monitorability using a triangulated protocol that combines ground-truth surrogate metrics, an oracle information-gain measure, and an LLM-as-auditor scoring Process Verifiability and Evidence Localization, showing that Chart-RVR yields rationales that are markedly more verifiable and evidence-grounded than those from CoT prompting, SFT, and existing chart-specific baselines.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting often improves the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), but the internal signal that triggers this behavior remains poorly understood. Leveraging the sparse features captured by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs), we propose a systematic framework to analyze and intervene on the internal representations of LLMs, identifying a small set of latent features that are linked to reasoning behavior and can be causally tested through targeted intervention. Across multiple model families and reasoning benchmarks, we show that steering a single reasoning-related latent feature can substantially induce reasoning behavior without explicit CoT prompting, achieving accuracy comparable to CoT. We further show that the identified features are not tied to particular wording patterns or verbosity, and confirm their causal role in reasoning through suppression experiments that impair performance even under CoT prompting. These results suggest that CoT prompting activates specific latent features to trigger reasoning, and that targeted intervention on these features offers an alternative pathway to elicit efficient reasoning behavior without explicit CoT prompting.

Compositional reasoning remains a persistent weakness of modern vision language models (VLMs): they often falter when a task hinges on understanding how multiple objects, attributes, and relations interact within an image. Multiple research works have attempted to improve compositionality performance by creative tricks such as improving prompt structure, chain of thought reasoning, etc. A more recent line of work attempts to impart additional reasoning in VLMs using well-trained Large Language Models (LLMs), which are far superior in linguistic understanding than VLMs to compensate for the limited linguistic prowess of VLMs. However, these approaches are either resource-intensive or do not provide an interpretable reasoning process. In this paper, we present “COCO-Tree” - a novel approach that augments VLM outputs with carefully designed neurosymbolic concept trees learned from LLMs to improve VLM’s linguistic reasoning. COCO-Tree’s beam search-inspired reasoning process boosts compositionality performance and provides a rationale behind VLM predictions. Empirical results on four compositionality benchmarks, Winoground, EqBench, ColorSwap, and SugarCrepe, in seven different open-source VLMs with varying sizes, demonstrate that COCO-Tree significantly improves compositional generalization by 5-10% over baselines.

Interpretability methods like Integrated Gradient and LIME are popular choices for explaining natural language model predictions with relative word importance scores. These interpretations need to be robust for trustworthy NLP applications in high-stake areas like medicine or finance. Our paper demonstrates how interpretations can be manipulated by making simple word perturbations on an input text. Via a small portion of word-level swaps, these adversarial perturbations aim to make the resulting text semantically and spatially similar to its seed input (therefore sharing similar interpretations). Simultaneously, the generated examples achieve the same prediction label as the seed yet are given a substantially different explanation by the interpretation methods. Our experiments generate fragile interpretations to attack two SOTA interpretation methods, across three popular Transformer models and on three different NLP datasets. We observe that the rank order correlation and top-K intersection score drops by over 20% when less than 10% of words are perturbed on average. Further, rank-order correlation keeps decreasing as more words get perturbed. Furthermore, we demonstrate that candidates generated from our method have good quality metrics.