Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance by leveraging long-form Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, but uniformly applying overlong reasoning at inference time incurs substantial and often unnecessary computational cost. To address this, prior work explores various strategies to infer an appropriate reasoning budget from the input. However, such approaches are unreliable in the worst case, as estimating the minimal required reasoning effort is fundamentally difficult, and they implicitly fix the trade-off between reasoning cost and accuracy during training, limiting flexibility under varying deployment scenarios. Motivated by these limitations, we propose ORBIT, a controllable multi-budget reasoning framework with well-separated reasoning modes triggered by input. ORBIT employs multi-stage reinforcement learning to discover Pareto-optimal reasoning behaviors at each effort, followed by on-policy distillation to fuse these behaviors into a single unified model. Experiments show that ORBIT achieves (1) controllable reasoning behavior over multiple modes, (2) competitive reasoning density within each mode, and (3) integration of these frontier policies into a single unified student model while preserving clear mode separation and high per-mode performance.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising approach for enhancing reasoning and agentic behavior in large language models. However, rollout-intensive policy optimization is often limited by insufficient reward contrast, arising when overly simple or complex prompts generate low-variance feedback and when outcome-only rewards assign the same terminal assessment to every decision in a multi-turn rollout. Past efforts have focused on allocating available rollout resources to promising prompts, yet they only leverage sample informativeness at the prompt level and neglect variation in prefix-level informativeness across turns within the same rollout. This work targets multi-turn agentic RL by modeling each ReAct-style thought-action-observation turn as a semantically distinct node, allowing budget allocation to extend from prompt roots to turn-level prefixes with further continuations, which naturally forms tree-structured rollouts. We introduce Tree Rollout Allocation for Contrastive Exploration (TRACE), a unified rollout allocation framework that enhances reward contrast within a fixed sampling budget. Technically, TRACE allocates rollout budget to both prompt roots and intermediate prefixes that are most likely to yield mixed terminal rewards. A shared generalizable predictor estimates conditional success probability at these anchors from prefix histories to guide this allocation. The resulting adaptive tree structure enriches outcome-only feedback and amplifies the policy-update signal. Empirically, TRACE achieves competitive performance and efficiency gains on typical agentic benchmarks, e.g., improving Qwen3-14B Multi-Hop QA average accuracy by 2.8 points over competitive baselines at equal sampling cost. Code is available at https://github.com/gfyddha/TRACE.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that “the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof”. We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework Safe. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework Safe across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose FormalStep as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with 30,809 formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.