Stable Adaptive Thinking via Advantage Shaping and Length-Aware Gradient Regulation

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve strong performance through extended reasoning traces, but they often exhibit overthinking behavior for low-complexity queries. Existing efforts to mitigate this issue are fundamentally limited by unstable accuracy-efficiency trade-offs and poor robustness to heterogeneous reasoning behaviors. To address these challenges, we propose a two-stage framework for stable adaptive thinking in LRMs. The framework first applies Hybrid Fine-Tuning to expose the model to both thinking and no-thinking behaviors, establishing well-conditioned initialization. It then performs adaptive reinforcement learning with Correctness-Preserving Advantage Shaping (CPAS) to avoid suppressing correct long-chain reasoning, and Length-Aware Gradient Regulation (LAGR) to stabilize optimization under severe reasoning-length heterogeneity. Extensive experiments on Qwen2.5-1.5B and 7B show consistent improvements over strong baselines, achieving up to +3.7/+3.6 accuracy points while reducing generated tokens by 40.6%/43.9%. Further analyses across varying problem difficulties and out-of-distribution tasks confirm the robustness and generalization of our approach.

Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning: Resolving Confident Conflicts to Mitigate Forgetting

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is the standard paradigm for domain adaptation, yet it frequently incurs the cost of catastrophic forgetting. In sharp contrast, on-policy Reinforcement Learning (RL) effectively preserves general capabilities. We investigate this discrepancy and identify a fundamental distributional gap: while RL aligns with the model's internal belief, SFT forces the model to fit external supervision. This mismatch often manifests as "Confident Conflicts" tokens characterized by low probability but low entropy. In these instances, the model is highly confident in its own prediction but is forced to learn a divergent ground truth, triggering destructive gradient updates. To address this, we propose Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (EAFT). Unlike methods relying solely on prediction probability, EAFT utilizes token-level entropy as a gating mechanism to distinguish between epistemic uncertainty and knowledge conflict. This allows the model to learn from uncertain samples while suppressing gradients on conflicting data. Extensive experiments on Qwen and GLM series (ranging from 4B to 32B parameters) across mathematical, medical, and agentic domains confirm our hypothesis. EAFT consistently matches the downstream performance of standard SFT while significantly mitigating the degradation of general capabilities.

SWE-Compass: Towards Unified Evaluation of Agentic Coding Abilities for Large Language Models

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for software engineering has been limited by narrow task coverage, language bias, and insufficient alignment with real-world developer workflows. Existing benchmarks often focus on algorithmic problems or Python-centric bug fixing, leaving critical dimensions of software engineering underexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce SWE-Compass1, a comprehensive benchmark that unifies heterogeneous code-related evaluations into a structured and production-aligned framework. SWE-Compass spans 8 task types, 8 programming scenarios, and 10 programming languages, with 2000 high-quality instances curated from authentic GitHub pull requests and refined through systematic filtering and validation. We benchmark ten state-of-the-art LLMs under two agentic frameworks, SWE-Agent and Claude Code, revealing a clear hierarchy of difficulty across task types, languages, and scenarios. Moreover, by aligning evaluation with real-world developer practices, SWE-Compass provides a rigorous and reproducible foundation for diagnosing and advancing agentic coding capabilities in large language models.