MedVLSynther: Synthesizing High-Quality Visual Question Answering from Medical Documents with Generator-Verifier LMMs

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) are increasingly capable of answering medical questions that require joint reasoning over images and text, yet training general medical VQA systems is impeded by the lack of large, openly usable, high-quality corpora. We present MedVLSynther, a rubric-guided generator-verifier framework that synthesizes high-quality multiple-choice VQA items directly from open biomedical literature by conditioning on figures, captions, and in-text references. The generator produces self-contained stems and parallel, mutually exclusive options under a machine-checkable JSON schema; a multi-stage verifier enforces essential gates (self-containment, single correct answer, clinical validity, image-text consistency), awards fine-grained positive points, and penalizes common failure modes before acceptance. Applying this pipeline to PubMed Central yields MedSynVQA: 13,087 audited questions over 14,803 images spanning 13 imaging modalities and 28 anatomical regions. Training open-weight LMMs with reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards improves accuracy across six medical VQA benchmarks, achieving averages of 55.85 (3B) and 58.15 (7B), with up to 77.57 on VQA-RAD and 67.76 on PathVQA, outperforming strong medical LMMs. A Ablations verify that both generation and verification are necessary and that more verified data consistently helps, and a targeted contamination analysis detects no leakage from evaluation suites. By operating entirely on open literature and open-weight models, MedVLSynther offers an auditable, reproducible, and privacy-preserving path to scalable medical VQA training data.

TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use

Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly rely on tool use to complete real-world tasks. While existing works evaluate the LLMs' tool use capability, they largely focus on the final answers yet overlook the detailed tool usage trajectory, i.e., whether tools are selected, parameterized, and ordered correctly. We introduce TRAJECT-Bench, a trajectory-aware benchmark to comprehensively evaluate LLMs' tool use capability through diverse tasks with fine-grained evaluation metrics. TRAJECT-Bench pairs high-fidelity, executable tools across practical domains with tasks grounded in production-style APIs, and synthesizes trajectories that vary in breadth (parallel calls) and depth (interdependent chains). Besides final accuracy, TRAJECT-Bench also reports trajectory-level diagnostics, including tool selection and argument correctness, and dependency/order satisfaction. Analyses reveal failure modes such as similar tool confusion and parameter-blind selection, and scaling behavior with tool diversity and trajectory length where the bottleneck of transiting from short to mid-length trajectories is revealed, offering actionable guidance for LLMs' tool use.

Can Large Language Models Adequately Perform Symbolic Reasoning Over Time Series?

Uncovering hidden symbolic laws from time series data, as an aspiration dating back to Kepler's discovery of planetary motion, remains a core challenge in scientific discovery and artificial intelligence. While Large Language Models show promise in structured reasoning tasks, their ability to infer interpretable, context-aligned symbolic structures from time series data is still underexplored. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce SymbolBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess symbolic reasoning over real-world time series across three tasks: multivariate symbolic regression, Boolean network inference, and causal discovery. Unlike prior efforts limited to simple algebraic equations, SymbolBench spans a diverse set of symbolic forms with varying complexity. We further propose a unified framework that integrates LLMs with genetic programming to form a closed-loop symbolic reasoning system, where LLMs act both as predictors and evaluators. Our empirical results reveal key strengths and limitations of current models, highlighting the importance of combining domain knowledge, context alignment, and reasoning structure to improve LLMs in automated scientific discovery.

Bradley-Terry and Multi-Objective Reward Modeling Are Complementary

Reward models trained on human preference data have demonstrated strong effectiveness in aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent under the framework of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). However, RLHF remains vulnerable to reward hacking, where the policy exploits imperfections in the reward function rather than genuinely learning the intended behavior. Although significant efforts have been made to mitigate reward hacking, they predominantly focus on and evaluate in-distribution scenarios, where the training and testing data for the reward model share the same distribution. In this paper, we empirically show that state-of-the-art methods struggle in more challenging out-of-distribution (OOD) settings. We further demonstrate that incorporating fine-grained multi-attribute scores helps address this challenge. However, the limited availability of high-quality data often leads to weak performance of multi-objective reward functions, which can negatively impact overall performance and become the bottleneck. To address this issue, we propose a unified reward modeling framework that jointly trains Bradley--Terry (BT) single-objective and multi-objective regression-based reward functions using a shared embedding space. We theoretically establish a connection between the BT loss and the regression objective and highlight their complementary benefits. Specifically, the regression task enhances the single-objective reward function's ability to mitigate reward hacking in challenging OOD settings, while BT-based training improves the scoring capability of the multi-objective reward function, enabling a 7B model to outperform a 70B baseline. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework significantly improves both the robustness and the scoring performance of reward models.

RRO: LLM Agent Optimization Through Rising Reward Trajectories

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited extraordinary performance in a variety of tasks while it remains challenging for them to solve complex multi-step tasks as agents. In practice, agents sensitive to the outcome of certain key steps which makes them likely to fail the task because of a subtle mistake in the planning trajectory. Recent approaches resort to calibrating the reasoning process through reinforcement learning. They reward or penalize every reasoning step with process supervision, as known as Process Reward Models (PRMs). However, PRMs are difficult and costly to scale up with a large number of next action candidates since they require extensive computations to acquire the training data through the per-step trajectory exploration. To mitigate this issue, we focus on the relative reward trend across successive reasoning steps and propose maintaining an increasing reward in the collected trajectories for process supervision, which we term Reward Rising Optimization (RRO). Specifically, we incrementally augment the process supervision until identifying a step exhibiting positive reward differentials, i.e. rising rewards, relative to its preceding iteration. This method dynamically expands the search space for the next action candidates, efficiently capturing high-quality data. We provide mathematical groundings and empirical results on the WebShop and InterCode-SQL benchmarks, showing that our proposed RRO achieves superior performance while requiring much less exploration cost.

Efficient Long CoT Reasoning in Small Language Models

Recent large reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1 exhibit strong complex problems solving abilities by generating long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning steps. It is challenging to directly train small language models (SLMs) to emerge long CoT. Thus, distillation becomes a practical method to enable SLMs for such reasoning ability. However, the long CoT often contains a lot of redundant contents (e.g., overthinking steps) which may make SLMs hard to learn considering their relatively poor capacity and generalization. To address this issue, we propose a simple-yet-effective method to prune unnecessary steps in long CoT, and then employ an on-policy method for the SLM itself to curate valid and useful long CoT training data. In this way, SLMs can effectively learn efficient long CoT reasoning and preserve competitive performance at the same time. Experimental results across a series of mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in distilling long CoT reasoning ability into SLMs which maintains the competitive performance but significantly reduces generating redundant reasoning steps.

Beyond Text: Unveiling Privacy Vulnerabilities in Multi-modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MRAG) systems enhance LMMs by integrating external multimodal databases, but introduce unexplored privacy vulnerabilities. While text-based RAG privacy risks have been studied, multimodal data presents unique challenges. We provide the first systematic analysis of MRAG privacy vulnerabilities across vision-language and speech-language modalities. Using a novel compositional structured prompt attack in a black-box setting, we demonstrate how attackers can extract private information by manipulating queries. Our experiments reveal that LMMs can both directly generate outputs resembling retrieved content and produce descriptions that indirectly expose sensitive information, highlighting the urgent need for robust privacy-preserving MRAG techniques.

Harnessing the Unseen: The Hidden Influence of Intrinsic Knowledge in Long-Context Language Models

Recent advances in long-context models (LCMs), designed to handle extremely long input contexts, primarily focus on utilizing external contextual information, often leaving the influence of large language models' intrinsic knowledge underexplored. In this work, we investigate how this intrinsic knowledge affects content generation and demonstrate that its impact becomes increasingly pronounced as context length extends. Furthermore, we show that the model's ability to utilize intrinsic knowledge, which we call intrinsic retrieval ability, does not improve simultaneously with its ability to leverage contextual knowledge through extrinsic retrieval ability. Moreover, better extrinsic retrieval can interfere with the model's ability to use its own knowledge effectively, limiting its full potential. To bridge this gap, we design a simple yet effective Hybrid Needle-in-a-Haystack test that evaluates models based on their capabilities across both retrieval abilities, rather than solely emphasizing extrinsic retrieval ability. Our experimental results reveal that Qwen-2.5 models significantly outperform Llama-3.1 models, demonstrating superior intrinsic retrieval ability. Moreover, even the more powerful Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct model fails to exhibit better performance under LCM conditions, highlighting the importance of evaluating models from a dual-retrieval perspective.

SFT or RL? An Early Investigation into Training R1-Like Reasoning Large Vision-Language Models

This work revisits the dominant supervised fine-tuning (SFT) then reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm for training Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), and reveals a key finding: SFT can significantly undermine subsequent RL by inducing ``pseudo reasoning paths'' imitated from expert models. While these paths may resemble the native reasoning paths of RL models, they often involve prolonged, hesitant, less informative steps, and incorrect reasoning. To systematically study this effect, we introduce VLAA-Thinking, a new multimodal dataset designed to support reasoning in LVLMs. Constructed via a six-step pipeline involving captioning, reasoning distillation, answer rewrite and verification, VLAA-Thinking comprises high-quality, step-by-step visual reasoning traces for SFT, along with a more challenging RL split from the same data source. Using this dataset, we conduct extensive experiments comparing SFT, RL and their combinations. Results show that while SFT helps models learn reasoning formats, it often locks aligned models into imitative, rigid reasoning modes that impede further learning. In contrast, building on the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a novel mixed reward module integrating both perception and cognition signals, our RL approach fosters more genuine, adaptive reasoning behavior. Notably, our model VLAA-Thinker, based on Qwen2.5VL 3B, achieves top-1 performance on Open LMM Reasoning Leaderboard (https://huggingface.co/spaces/opencompass/Open_LMM_Reasoning_Leaderboard) among 4B scale LVLMs, surpassing the previous state-of-the-art by 1.8%. We hope our findings provide valuable insights in developing reasoning-capable LVLMs and can inform future research in this area.

m1: Unleash the Potential of Test-Time Scaling for Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models

Test-time scaling has emerged as a powerful technique for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, its effectiveness in medical reasoning remains uncertain, as the medical domain fundamentally differs from mathematical tasks in terms of knowledge representation and decision-making processes. In this paper, we provide the first comprehensive investigation of test-time scaling for medical reasoning and present m1, a simple yet effective approach that increases a model's medical reasoning capability at inference. Our evaluation across diverse medical tasks demonstrates that test-time scaling consistently enhances medical reasoning, enabling lightweight fine-tuned models under 10B parameters to establish new state-of-the-art performance, while our 32B model rivals previous 70B-scale medical LLMs. However, we identify an optimal reasoning token budget of approximately 4K, beyond which performance may degrade due to overthinking. Budget forcing, which extends test-time computation through iterative prompts, helps models double-check answers but does not necessarily improve the overall medical QA performance and, in some cases, even introduces errors into previously correct responses. Our case-by-case analysis identifies insufficient medical knowledge as a key bottleneck that prevents further performance gains through test-time scaling. We find that increasing data scale, improving data quality, and expanding model capacity consistently enhance medical knowledge grounding, enabling continued performance improvements, particularly on challenging medical benchmarks where smaller models reach saturation. These findings underscore fundamental differences between medical and mathematical reasoning in LLMs, highlighting that enriched medical knowledge, other than increased reasoning depth alone, is essential for realizing the benefits of test-time scaling.