Reinforcement learning for code generation relies on verifiable rewards from unit test pass rates. Yet high-quality test suites are scarce, existing datasets offer limited coverage, and static rewards fail to adapt as models improve. Recent self-play methods unify code and test generation in a single model, but face an inherent dilemma: white-box access leads to self-collusion where the model produces trivial tests for easy rewards, yet black-box restriction yields generic tests that miss implementation-specific bugs. We introduce Code-A1, an adversarial co-evolution framework that jointly optimizes a Code LLM and a Test LLM with opposing objectives. The Code LLM is rewarded for passing more tests, while the Test LLM is rewarded for exposing more defects. This architectural separation eliminates self-collusion risks and safely enables white-box test generation, where the Test LLM can inspect candidate code to craft targeted adversarial tests. We further introduce a Mistake Book mechanism for experience replay and a composite reward balancing test validity with adversarial difficulty. Experiments on Qwen2.5-Coder models demonstrate that Code-A1 achieves code generation performance matching or exceeding models trained on human-annotated tests, while significantly improving test generation capability.

Large reasoning models have achieved remarkable performance through extended chain-of-thought sequences, yet this computational freedom leads to excessive token generation even for simple problems. We present Length-Adaptive Policy Optimization (LAPO), a novel framework that transforms reasoning length control from an external constraint into an intrinsic model capability. Unlike existing approaches that impose rigid limits or rely on post-hoc interventions, LAPO enables models to internalize an understanding of appropriate reasoning depth through a two-stage reinforcement learning process. In the first stage, models learn natural reasoning patterns by discovering the statistical distribution of successful solution lengths. In the second stage, these learned patterns are embedded as in-context, self-declarative guidance, teaching the model to proactively plan its reasoning budget. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that LAPO reduces token usage by up to 38.5% while improving accuracy by 2.3%. Our analysis reveals that models trained with LAPO develop emergent abilities to allocate computational resources based on problem complexity, achieving efficient reasoning without sacrificing quality.

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress on complex reasoning tasks. However, they often implicitly fabricate information when inputs are incomplete, producing confident but unreliable conclusions—a failure mode we term ungrounded reasoning. We argue that this issue arises not from insufficient reasoning capability, but from the lack of inferential boundary awareness—the ability to recognize when the necessary premises for valid inference are missing. To address this issue, we propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL), a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework for grounded reasoning under incomplete information. GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established. We design stage-specific rewards to penalize hallucinations, enabling models to detect gaps, stop proactively, and resume reasoning after clarification. Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%. Additional analyses confirm robustness to noisy user responses and generalization to out-of-distribution tasks.

Deep search agents solve knowledge-intensive tasks through long-horizon, multi-turn interactions, where assigning credit to individual search decisions is fundamentally difficult. Outcome-based reinforcement learning provides only a single terminal reward shared across an entire trajectory. Recent process-supervision methods aim to assign credit at finer granularity, but they typically anchor credit to either surface-level trajectory states or model-internal signals, both of which become unreliable in deep search where observations are heterogeneous and retrieved contexts are long and noisy. We propose KnowGPO, a reinforcement learning framework that aligns trajectories by the task-relevant knowledge they have acquired rather than by their surface observations. For each query, KnowGPO decomposes the information required to derive the answer into atomic knowledge conditions, and represents the state of a trajectory at each step by the subset of conditions it has satisfied. Trajectories sharing the same knowledge state are grouped for within-group comparison, and the incremental knowledge gain between consecutive steps serves as an environment-grounded process reward. Experiments on Xbench, BrowseComp-ZH, and GAIA show KnowGPO consistently outperforms outcome-only (GRPO) and process-supervision baselines (GiGPO, IGPO) by 3.8 to 4.2 points, with our 8B model rivaling or exceeding most 32B open-source systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/ZJU-REAL/KnowGPO.

Deep search requires LLM agents to decompose complex queries, search for evidence, and synthesize grounded answers, yet existing ReAct-style agents suffer from two limitations: role coupling, where one policy must handle planning, evidence use, and synthesis; and context accumulation, where growing search histories introduce noise and obscure useful information. To address these issues, we propose IterSynth, a role-decoupled and summary-based paradigm that alternates between a Planner for identifying information needs and a Synthesizer for integrating evidence into an evolving summary state. This design separates planning from synthesis while using the summary as the persistent state of search, reducing both capability coupling and context noise. To train IterSynth effectively, we further introduce Role-Decoupled Policy Optimization (RDPO) for reinforcement learning, which combines terminal outcome rewards with turn-level rubric evaluations and computes role-specific advantages for more precise credit assignment. Experiments on five long-horizon deep-search benchmarks such as BrowseComp and Xbench-DS show that IterSynth-8B achieves an average score of 50.7, surpassing the strongest prior ≤8B agent by +4.2%. Moreover, IterSynth serves as a model-agnostic prompting paradigm, delivering substantial zero-shot gains over ReAct and similar prompting paradigms on frontier proprietary models.

Mathematical reasoning is a key capability for vision-language models (VLMs), yet current benchmarks mainly evaluate text-based or explicitly symbolic visual inputs. It remains unclear whether VLMs can reason mathematically when information must be perceived and inferred from images rather than read from explicit symbols. We introduce GSM8K-V, a benchmark transforming GSM8K into multi-image sequences with semantic equivalence preserved. By mapping text-based problems into visual form via an automated pipeline and human verification, we curate 1,319 high-quality samples. In GSM8K-V, quantities must be extracted through visual perception, and reasoning chains must be reconstructed by integrating implicit cues across scenes. Evaluation of 34 VLMs reveals a striking modality gap: while most models exceed 90% on text, the best model achieves only 59% on GSM8K-V, far below the 91% human accuracy. Notably, models enhanced for visual math reasoning show no improvement on GSM8K-V despite large gains on existing benchmarks, confirming that it evaluates a distinct capability. Error analysis shows that the primary bottleneck lies in Implicit Visual Inference Error (IVIE), where models fail to recover visual semantics that are implied rather than explicitly stated. Our code and data are released at https://github.com/ZJU-REAL/GSM8K-V.

Verifiers play a central role in large language model reasoning by providing reliable supervision for post-training methods such as reinforcement learning. In code generation, however, verification is still predominantly based on fixed test cases, offering a narrow but underexploited form of verifiable supervision. We explore how existing test cases can be reformulated into more diverse and challenging sources of verifiable training signals. We propose Code-TVT (Test-Case-Driven Verifiable Tasks), a data synthesis framework that transforms program test cases into intrinsically verifiable code reasoning tasks. Using test cases already available in programming problems, we design two complementary tasks: Edge Test-Case Generation, which constructs edge-case inputs that expose subtle correctness failures, and Input Reconstruction via Program Output Inversion, which reasons backward from outputs to plausible inputs under execution-based verification. Experiments show that training with Code-TVT consistently improves code generation performance on three time-windowed LiveCodeBench splits (LCB-2408-2411, LCB-V5, and LCB-V6) under rejection-sampling fine-tuning and Group Relative Policy Optimization.

Large language model (LLM) steering has emerged as a promising paradigm for controlling model behavior at inference time through targeted manipulation of hidden states, offering a lightweight alternative to expensive retraining. However, existing steering frameworks suffer from critical limitations: computational inefficiency, limited extensibility, and restricted functionality that hinder both research progress and practical deployment. We present EasySteer, a unified framework for high-performance, extensible LLM steering built on vLLM. Our system features modular architecture with pluggable interfaces for both analysis-based and learning-based methods, fine-grained parameter control, pre-computed steering vectors for eight application domains, and an interactive demonstration system. Through deep integration with vLLM’s optimized inference engine, EasySteer achieves 10.8-22.3× speedup over existing frameworks. Extensive experiments demonstrate its effectiveness in overthinking mitigation, hallucination reduction, and other key applications. EasySteer transforms steering from research technique to production-ready capability, establishing critical infrastructure for deployable, controllable language models.

Label-free reinforcement learning enables large language models to improve reasoning capabilities without ground-truth supervision, typically by treating majority-voted answers as pseudo-labels. However, we identify a critical failure mode: as training maximizes self-consistency, output diversity collapses, causing the model to confidently reinforce systematic errors that evade detection. We term this the consensus trap. To escape it, we propose CoVerRL, a framework where a single model alternates between generator and verifier roles, with each capability bootstrapping the other. Majority voting provides noisy but informative supervision for training the verifier, while the improving verifier progressively filters self-consistent errors from pseudo-labels. This co-evolution creates a virtuous cycle that maintains high reward accuracy throughout training. Experiments across Qwen and Llama model families demonstrate that CoVerRL outperforms label-free baselines by 4.7-5.9% on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Moreover, self-verification accuracy improves from around 55% to over 85%, confirming that both capabilities genuinely co-evolve.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to achieve breakthrough performances on complex logical reasoning tasks. Nevertheless, most existing research focuses on employing formal language to guide LLMs for deriving reliable reasoning paths, with systematic evaluations of these capabilities still being limited. In this paper, we aim to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs across various logical reasoning problems utilizing formal languages. From the perspective of three dimensions, i.e., spectrum of LLMs, taxonomy of tasks, and format of trajectories, our key findings are: 1) Thinking models significantly outperform Instruct models, especially when formal language is employed; 2). All LLMs exhibit limitations in inductive reasoning capability, irrespective of whether they use a formal language; 3). Data with PoT format achieves the best generalization performance across other languages. Additionally, we also curate the formal-relative training data to further enhance the small language models, and the experimental results indicate that a simple rejected fine-tuning method can better enable LLMs to generalize across formal languages and achieve the best overall performance.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tool learning. In real-world scenarios, user queries are often ambiguous and incomplete, requiring effective clarification. However, existing interactive clarification approaches face two critical limitations: reliance on manually constructed datasets, which inherently constrains training data scale and diversity, and lack of error correction mechanisms during multi-turn clarification, leading to error accumulation that compromises both accuracy and efficiency. We present AskToAct, which addresses these challenges by exploiting the structural mapping between queries and their tool invocation solutions. Our key insight is that tool parameters naturally represent explicit user intents. By systematically removing key parameters from queries while retaining them as ground truth, we enable automated construction of high-quality training data. We further enhance model robustness through error-correction pairs and selective masking, enabling dynamic error detection during clarification interactions. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that AskToAct significantly outperforms existing approaches, achieving above 57% accuracy in recovering critical unspecified intents and enhancing clarification efficiency by an average of 10.46% while maintaining high accuracy in tool invocation. Our framework exhibits robust performance across different model architectures and successfully generalizes to entirely unseen APIs without additional training, achieving performance comparable to GPT-4o with substantially fewer computational resources.

In this paper, we propose a new data synthesis method called LogicPro, which leverages LeetCode-style algorithm Problems and their corresponding Program solutions to synthesize Complex Logical Reasoning data in text format. First, we synthesize complex reasoning problems through source algorithm problems and test cases. Then, standard answers and intermediate variable outputs are obtained for each problem based on standard python solutions and test cases. Finally, with the guidance of code intermediate variables, we synthesize the text reasoning process for each reasoning problems. Through this method, we can synthesize data that is difficult, scalable, effective, and comes with golden standard answers and high-quality reasoning processes. As a result, with our 540K synthesized dataset constructed solely from 2,360 algorithm problems, our approach achieves significant improvements in multiple models for the datasets BBH^27, LogicBench, DROP, AR-LSAT, and GSM8K, etc. outperforming a wide range of existing reasoning datasets.

Recent progress with LLM-based agents has shown promising results across various tasks. However, their use in answering questions from knowledge bases remains largely unexplored. Implementing a KBQA system using traditional methods is challenging due to the shortage of task-specific training data and the complexity of creating task-focused model structures. In this paper, we present Triad, a unified framework that utilizes an LLM-based agent with multiple roles for KBQA tasks. The agent is assigned three roles to tackle different KBQA subtasks: agent as a generalist for mastering various subtasks, as a decision maker for the selection of candidates, and as an advisor for answering questions with knowledge. Our KBQA framework is executed in four phases, involving the collaboration of the agent’s multiple roles. We evaluated the performance of our framework using three benchmark datasets, and the results show that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art systems on the LC-QuAD and YAGO-QA benchmarks, yielding F1 scores of 11.8% and 20.7%, respectively.