Large language models increasingly expose reasoning traces, yet their underlying cognitive structure and steps remain difficult to identify and analyze beyond surface-level statistics. We adopt Schoenfeld’s Episode Theory as an inductive, intermediate-scale lens and introduce ThinkARM (Anatomy of Reasoning in Models), a scalable framework that explicitly abstracts reasoning traces into functional reasoning steps such as Analysis, Explore, Implement, Verify, etc. When applied to mathematical problem solving by diverse models, this abstraction reveals reproducible thinking dynamics and structural differences between reasoning and non-reasoning models, which are not apparent from token-level views. We further present two diagnostic case studies showing that exploration functions as a critical branching step associated with correctness, and that efficiency-oriented methods selectively suppress evaluative feedback steps rather than uniformly shortening responses. Together, our results demonstrate that episode-level representations make reasoning steps explicit, enabling systematic analysis of how reasoning is structured, stabilized, and altered in modern language models.

Accurate estimation of item (question or task) difficulty is critical for educational assessment but suffers from the cold start problem. While Large Language Models demonstrate superhuman problem-solving capabilities, it remains an open question whether they can perceive the cognitive struggles of human learners. In this work, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains such as medical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful; instead of aligning with humans, models converge toward a shared machine consensus. We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students even when being explicitly prompted to adopt specific proficiency levels. Furthermore, we identify a critical lack of introspection, as models fail to predict their own limitations. These results suggest that general problem-solving capability does not imply an understanding of human cognitive struggles, highlighting the challenge of using current models for automated difficulty prediction.

Visual text grounding provides interpretable evidence for document question answering. Due to the complex layouts and mixed visual-text contents in text-rich images, effective visual text grounding requires strong visual and spatial reasoning to localize multiple referenced regions. Existing multimodal large language model (MLLM) approaches often struggle to align query tokens with visual–text patches, heavily relying on lengthy OCR inputs. To tackle this problem, we propose Doc-AGround, an OCR-free approach that leverages the MLLM’s inherent multi-head attention for multi-patch grounding. Doc-AGround extracts a patch-wise attention map as the grounding prediction. Concurrently, it introduces an effective multi-head weighting mechanism to amplify the attention heads’ intrinsic role in connecting vision and text. Empirical results of Doc-AGround show state-of-the-art performance on challenging document grounding benchmarks, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed attention-based grounding design.

Large Language Models demonstrate strong capabilities in single-turn instruction following but suffer from Lost-in-Conversation (LiC), a degradation in performance as information is revealed progressively in multi-turn settings. Motivated by the current progress on Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), we propose Curriculum Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Accuracy and Abstention Rewards (RLAAR), a framework that encourages models not only to generate correct answers, but also to judge the solvability of questions in the multi-turn conversation setting. Our approach employs a competence-gated curriculum that incrementally increases dialogue difficulty (in terms of instruction shards), stabilizing training while promoting reliability. Using multi-turn, on-policy rollouts and a mixed-reward system, RLAAR teaches models to balance problem-solving with informed abstention, reducing premature answering behaviors that cause LiC. Evaluated on LiC benchmarks, RLAAR significantly mitigates LiC performance decay (62.6% to 75.1%) and improves calibrated abstention rates (33.5% to 73.4%). Together, these results provide a practical recipe for building multi-turn reliable and trustworthy LLMs.

As the post-training of large language models (LLMs) advances from instruction-following to complex reasoning tasks, understanding how different data affect finetuning dynamics remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a spectral analysis of layer-wise gradients induced by low/high-quality instruction and reasoning data for LLM post-training. Our analysis reveals that widely-studied metrics for data evaluation, e.g., IFD, InsTag, Difficulty, and Reward, can be explained and unified by spectral properties computed from gradients’ singular value decomposition (SVD). Specifically, higher-quality data are usually associated with lower nuclear norms and higher effective ranks. Notably, effective rank exhibits better robustness and resolution than nuclear norm in capturing subtle quality differences. For example, reasoning data achieves substantially higher effective ranks than instruction data, implying richer gradient structures on more complex tasks. Our experiments also highlight that models within the same family share similar gradient patterns regardless of their sizes, whereas different model families diverge significantly. Providing a unified view on the effects of data quality across instruction and reasoning data, this work illuminates the interplay between data quality and training stability, shedding novel insights into developing better data exploration strategies for post-training.

Large language models (LLMs) still lack delicate controllability over their responses, which is critical to enhancing their performance and the user experience. However, curating supervised fine-tuning (SFT) datasets to improve LLM controllability usually relies on human experts or proprietary LLMs, which requires additional costs. To bridge this gap, we propose Rule-based Data Recycling (RuleR), a data augmentation method incorporating multiple constraints into the original data samples according to predefined rules, which creates new training tasks to consolidate the controllability of LLMs. Instead of creating new data from scratch, RuleR “recycles” existing data by simply applying rule-based edits to their responses and appending the rule-instructions in their original instructions. Experimental results demonstrate RuleR’s effectiveness in improving LLM controllability while maintaining general instruction-following capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly aligned with human preferences through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Among RLHF methods, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has gained attention for its simplicity and strong performance, notably eliminating the need for a learned value function. However, GRPO implicitly assumes a balanced domain distribution and uniform semantic alignment across groups—assumptions that rarely hold in real-world datasets. When applied to multi-domain, imbalanced data, GRPO disproportionately optimizes for dominant domains, neglecting underrepresented ones and resulting in poor generalization and fairness. We propose Domain-Informed Self-Consistency Policy Optimization (DISCO), a principled extension to GRPO that addresses inter-group imbalance with two key innovations. Domain-aware reward scaling counteracts frequency bias by reweighting optimization based on domain prevalence. Difficulty-aware reward scaling leverages prompt-level self-consistency to identify and prioritize uncertain prompts that offer greater learning value. Together, these strategies promote more equitable and effective policy learning across domains. Extensive experiments across multiple LLMs and skewed training distributions show that DISCO improves generalization, outperforms existing GRPO variants by 5% on Qwen3 models, and sets new state-of-the-art results on multi-domain alignment benchmarks.

What makes a difference in the post-training of LLMs? We investigate the training patterns of different layers in large language models (LLMs) through the lens of the gradient. We are specifically interested in how fast vs. slow thinking affects the layer-wise gradients, given the recent popularity of training LLMs on reasoning paths such as chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and process rewards. In our study, fast thinking without CoT leads to larger gradients and larger differences of gradients across layers than slow thinking (Detailed CoT), indicating the learning stability brought by the latter. Additionally, we study whether the gradient patterns can reflect the correctness of responses when training different LLMs using slow vs. fast thinking paths. The results show that the gradients of slow thinking can distinguish correct and irrelevant reasoning paths. As a comparison, we conduct similar gradient analyses on non-reasoning knowledge learning tasks, on which, however, trivially increasing the response length does not lead to similar behaviors of slow thinking. Our study strengthens fundamental understandings of LLM training and sheds novel insights on its efficiency and stability, which pave the way towards building a generalizable System-2 agent.

Finetuning large language models with a variety of instruction-response pairs has enhanced their capability to understand and follow instructions. Current instruction tuning primarily relies on teacher models or human intervention to generate and refine the instructions and responses for training, which are costly, non-sustainable, and may lack diversity. In this paper, we introduce Mosaic Instruction Tuning (Mosaic-IT), a human/model-free compositional data synthesis method that can efficiently create rich and diverse augmentations from existing instruction tuning data to enhance the LLMs. Mosaic-IT randomly concatenates multiple instruction data into one and trains the model to produce the corresponding responses with predefined higher-level meta-instructions to strengthen its multi-step instruction-following and format-following skills. Our extensive evaluations demonstrate a superior performance and training efficiency of Mosaic-IT, which achieves consistent performance improvements over various benchmarks and an 80% reduction in training costs compared with original instruction tuning.

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) generate extensive chain-of-thought reasoning, we lack a principled framework for understanding how these thoughts are structured. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach by applying Schoenfeld’s Episode Theory, a classic cognitive framework for human mathematical problem-solving, to analyze the reasoning traces of LRMs. We annotated thousands of sentences and paragraphs from model-generated solutions to math problems using seven cognitive labels (e.g., Plan, Implement, Verify). The result is the first publicly available benchmark for the fine-grained analysis of machine reasoning, including a large annotated corpus and detailed annotation guidebooks. Our preliminary analysis reveals distinct patterns in LRM reasoning, such as the transition dynamics between cognitive states. This framework provides a theoretically grounded methodology for interpreting LRM cognition and enables future work on more controllable and transparent reasoning systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable generalization capabilities across multi-domain tasks. Existing agent tuning approaches typically employ supervised finetuning on entire expert trajectories. However, behavior-cloning of full trajectories can introduce expert bias and weaken generalization to states not covered by the expert data. Additionally, critical steps—such as planning, complex reasoning for intermediate subtasks, and strategic decision-making—are essential to success in agent tasks, so learning these steps is the key to improving LLM agents. For more effective and efficient agent tuning, we propose ATLAS that identifies the critical steps in expert trajectories and finetunes LLMs solely on these steps with reduced costs. By steering the training’s focus to a few critical steps, our method mitigates the risk of overfitting entire trajectories and promotes generalization across different environments and tasks. In extensive experiments, an LLM finetuned on only 30% critical steps selected by ATLAS outperforms the LLM finetuned on all steps and recent open-source LLM agents. ATLAS maintains and improves base LLM skills as generalist agents interacting with diverse environments.

Instruction tuning is critical to large language models (LLMs) for achieving better instruction following and task adaptation capabilities but its success heavily relies on the training data quality. Many recent methods focus on improving the data quality but often overlook the compatibility of the data with the student model being finetuned. This paper introduces Selective Reflection-Tuning, a novel paradigm that synergizes a teacher LLM’s reflection and introspection for improving existing data quality with the data selection capability of the student LLM, to automatically refine existing instruction-tuning data. This teacher-student collaboration produces high-quality and student-compatible instruction-response pairs, resulting in sample-efficient instruction tuning and LLMs of superior performance. Selective Reflection-Tuning is a data augmentation and synthesis that generally improves LLM finetuning and self-improvement without collecting brand-new data. We apply our method to Alpaca and WizardLM data and achieve much stronger and top-tier 7B and 13B LLMs.

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (“DEBATUNE”) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs’ capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.