Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has proven effective in enhancing the reasoning of large language models (LLMs). Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-based extensions improve upon vanilla RLVR (e.g., GRPO) by providing tree-based reasoning rollouts that enable fine-grained and segment-level credit assignment. However, existing methods still suffer from limited exploration diversity and inefficient reasoning. To address the above challenges, we propose reinforced efficient reasoning via semantically diverse explorations, i.e., ROSE, for LLMs. To encourage more diverse reasoning exploration, our method incorporates a semantic-entropy-based branching strategy and an 𝜀-exploration mechanism. The former operates on already sampled reasoning rollouts to capture semantic uncertainty and select branching points with high semantic divergence to generate new successive reasoning paths, whereas the latter stochastically initiates reasoning rollouts from the root, preventing the search process from becoming overly local. To improve efficiency, we design a length-aware segment-level advantage estimator that rewards concise and correct reasoning while penalizing unnecessarily long reasoning chains. Extensive experiments on various mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Qwen and Llama models validate the effectiveness and efficiency of ROSE. Codes are available at https://github.com/ZiqiZhao1/ROSE-rl.

In recent months, substantial progress has been made in complex reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly through the application of test-time scaling. Notable examples include, though are not limited to, OpenAI’s o1/o3/o4 series and DeepSeek-R1. When responding to a query, these models generate an extended reasoning trajectory, during which the model explores, reflects, backtracks, and self-verifies before arriving at a conclusion. However, fine-tuning models with such reasoning trajectories may not always be optimal. Our findings indicate that not all components within these reasoning trajectories contribute positively to the reasoning process; in fact, some components may affect the overall performance negatively. In this study, we divide a reasoning trajectory into individual subtrajectories and develop a “5+2” framework to: (1) systematically identify suboptimal subtrajectories within the reasoning trajectory based on five human-established criteria; (2) assess the independence of the suboptimal subtrajectories identified in (1) from the subsequent content, ensuring that their elimination does not compromise overall flow and coherence of the reasoning process. Additionally, a sampling algorithm, built upon the “5+2” framework, is employed to select data whose reasoning process is free from suboptimal subtrajectories to the highest degree. Experimental results demonstrate that our method can reduce the number of suboptimal subtrajectories by 25.9% during the inference. Furthermore, our method achieves an average accuracy of 58.92% on highly challenging AIME24, AIME25, AMC24 and MATH500 benchmarks with only two thirds of training data, surpassing the average accuracy of 58.06% achieved with the entire data, and outperforming open-source datasets, including s1K-1.1, Light-R1-SFT-stage-1, OpenR1-Math-94k, and OpenThoughts-114k, when fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B. Finally, we have validated the efficacy of our method under resource-constrained scenarios, where it exhibits performance improvements across different maximum inference token limits: 2k, 4k, 8k, and 16k tokens.

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enabled the construction of multi-agent systems to solve complex tasks by dividing responsibilities among specialized agents, such as a planning agent for subgoal generation and a grounding agent for executing tool-use actions. Most existing methods typically fine-tune these agents independently, leading to capability gaps among them with poor coordination. To address this, we propose MOAT, a Multi-Agent Joint Alignment Tuning framework that improves agents collaboration through iterative alignment. MOAT alternates between two key stages: (1) Planning Agent Alignment, which optimizes the planning agent to generate subgoal sequences that better guide the grounding agent; and (2) Grounding Agent Improving, which fine-tunes the grounding agent using diverse subgoal-action pairs generated by the agent itself to enhance its generalization capablity. Theoretical analysis proves that MOAT ensures a non-decreasing and progressively convergent training process. Experiments across six benchmarks demonstrate that MOAT outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving average improvements of 3.1% on held-in tasks and 4.4% on held-out tasks.