Reinforcement Learning (RL) enhances LLM reasoning, yet a paradox emerges as models scale: strong base models saturate standard benchmarks (e.g., MATH), yielding correct but homogeneous solutions. In such environments, the lack of failure cases causes the advantage signal in group-relative algorithms (e.g., GRPO) to vanish, driving policies into mode collapse. To address this, we propose Constrained Uniform Top-K Sampling (CUTS), a parameter-free decoding strategy enforcing structure-preserving exploration. Unlike standard sampling that follows model biases, CUTS flattens the local optimization landscape by sampling uniformly from constrained high-confidence candidates. We integrate this into Mixed-CUTS, a training framework synergizing exploitative and exploratory rollouts to amplify intra-group advantage variance. Experiments on Qwen3 models demonstrate that our approach prevents policy degeneration and significantly boosts out-of-domain generalization. Notably, Mixed-CUTS improves Pass@1 accuracy on the challenging AIME25 benchmark by up to 15.1% over standard GRPO, validating that maintaining diversity within the semantic manifold is critical for rigorous reasoning.

Assessing the quality of Large Language Model (LLM) outputs becomes especially challenging in high-branching settings, where a single prompt yields many plausible candidates. Existing verifiers typically operate on the surface text (e.g., reward models, LLM judges, majority voting) or on confidence proxies derived from token probabilities, both of which can be brittle: the former can be influenced by stylistic artifacts, while the latter is often miscalibrated. In this paper, we study a third source of information—the model’s hidden states—for binary correctness verification in tasks with a reliable success/failure signal (e.g., deterministic checkers or reference-grounded answers). We find that correct and incorrect solutions exhibit measurable geometric differences in their hidden-state trajectories. To isolate this signal with minimal modeling assumptions, we introduce Clue (Clustering and Experience-based Verification), a training-free, non-parametric verifier. Clue summarizes each reasoning trace by an activation delta—the difference between hidden states at the start and end of the explicit reasoning span—and predicts correctness by comparing this delta to two class centroids computed from labeled experience. Across math (AIME 24/25), scientific QA (GPQA), and a multi-domain benchmark (WebInstruct-verified), Clue improves selection and reranking, with particularly strong gains on smaller or less-calibrated models. For example, on AIME 24 with a 1.5B model, Clue raises accuracy from 56.7% (majority@64) to 70.0% (top-maj@16).

Logical reasoning is a core capability for large language models (LLMs), yet existing benchmarks that rely solely on final-answer accuracy fail to capture the quality of the reasoning process. To address this, we introduce FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions: overall accuracy, stepwise soundness, and representation-level probing. Leveraging this framework, we conduct a comprehensive study on how different supervision formats in fine-tuning shape reasoning abilities. We fine-tune LLMs on four supervision styles—one in natural language and three symbolic variants—and find a key trade-off: natural language supervision excels at generalization to out-of-distribution and long-chain problems, whereas symbolic supervision is superior at instilling structurally sound, atomic reasoning steps. Furthermore, our probing analysis indicates that fine-tuning primarily refines the model’s step-by-step generation process, rather than improving its ability to converge on an answer early. Together, our framework and analysis provide a more rigorous lens for evaluating and improving logical reasoning in LLMs. The code is available at https://github.com/YujunZhou/FineLogic.

Due to the widespread use of LLMs and the rising critical ethical and safety concerns, LLM unlearning methods have been developed to remove harmful knowledge and undesirable capabilities. In this context, evaluations are mostly based on single-value metrics such as QA accuracy. However, these metrics often fail to capture the nuanced retention of harmful knowledge components, making it difficult to assess the true effectiveness of unlearning. To address this issue, we propose UNCD (UNlearning evaluation using Cognitive Diagnosis), a novel framework that leverages Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling for fine-grained evaluation of LLM unlearning. Our dedicated benchmark, UNCD-Cyber, provides a detailed assessment of the removal of dangerous capabilities. Moreover, we introduce UNCD-Agent, which refines unlearning by diagnosing knowledge remnants and generating targeted unlearning data. Extensive experiments across eight unlearning methods and two base models demonstrate that UNCD not only enhances evaluation but also effectively facilitates the removal of harmful LLM abilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities across diverse applications. However, concerns regarding their security, particularly the vulnerability to jailbreak attacks, persist. Drawing inspiration from adversarial training in deep learning and LLM agent learning processes, we introduce the In-Context Adversarial Game (ICAG) for defending against jailbreaks without the need for fine-tuning. ICAG leverages agent learning to conduct an adversarial game, aiming to dynamically extend knowledge to defend against jailbreaks. Unlike traditional methods that rely on static datasets, ICAG employs an iterative process to enhance both the defense and attack agents. This continuous improvement process strengthens defenses against newly generated jailbreak prompts. Our empirical studies affirm ICAG’s efficacy, where LLMs safeguarded by ICAG exhibit significantly reduced jailbreak success rates across various attack scenarios. Moreover, ICAG demonstrates remarkable transferability to other LLMs, indicating its potential as a versatile defense mechanism. The code is available at https://github.com/YujunZhou/In-Context-Adversarial-Game.

The paper introduces SceMQA, a novel benchmark for scientific multimodal question answering at the college entrance level. It addresses a critical educational phase often overlooked in existing benchmarks, spanning high school to pre-college levels. SceMQA focuses on core science subjects including Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. It features a blend of multiple-choice and free-response formats, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of AI models’ abilities. Additionally, our benchmark provides specific knowledge points for each problem and detailed explanations for each answer. SceMQA also uniquely presents problems with identical contexts but varied questions to facilitate a more thorough and accurate assessment of reasoning capabilities. In the experiment, we evaluate both open-source and close-source state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), across various experimental settings. The results show that further research and development are needed in developing more capable MLLM, as highlighted by only 50% to 60% accuracy achieved by the strongest models.