Who Leads Now? Token-Level Modality Arbitration for Chart-to-Code Generation

Chart-to-code generation requires a model to read the fine-grained visual details of a chart and write executable code that reproduces it. Existing chart-to-code methods either train visual and coding abilities separately, or fine-tune on chart-to-code data with the two abilities entangled. Neither strategy accounts for the distinct nature of the two abilities or the interference that arises when they are optimized together. We propose MoCA (Mixture of Cross-modal Arbitration), which separates the two abilities rather than blending them. MoCA is built on Cross-modal Arbitration Block (CAB), which maintains a visual branch and a code branch as two distinct pathways, and a lightweight arbiter that arbitrates their relative contributions at every layer and generated token. We train MoCA in two stages: a supervised warm-up on self-distilled reasoning trajectories that decomposes visual understanding into explicit steps, followed by reinforcement learning with rewards on both the reasoning process and the final code. Analysis shows that the arbiter learns structured rather than arbitrary allocations, with expert contributions varying systematically across tokens, layers, and instances. Across three benchmarks, MoCA delivers competitive performance against general-domain and chart-specialized models. Ablation results show that the gains cannot be attributed to a larger model size alone, but instead arise from the joint contributions of complementary visual and code branch initialization and input-conditioned arbitration through CAB.

TsuGO: Probing Search Efficiency in LLM Reasoning via Go Life-and-Death Problems

The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search. Prior process-level methods focus on the coherence and redundancy of chain-of-thought (CoT), and most benchmark tasks have a single objective solvable by static capabilities such as derivation and tool use, leaving search organization unmeasured. We introduce TsuGO, a process-level reasoning benchmark for evaluating Search Efficiency in LLM reasoning through Go life-and-death problems. These problems provide closed and verifiable solution spaces with an inherent adversarial structure, making candidate generation, response checking, branch comparison, and backtracking necessary parts of reasoning rather than incidental trace patterns. By constraining the solution space, TsuGO disentangles domain knowledge from search organization, parses CoT into a structured search tree, and reports Search Efficiency together with Token Efficiency and other diagnostic metrics and visualizations. Experiments show that current LLMs remain far from stable tsumego solving: stronger models succeed by finding the correct candidate earlier and sustaining effort on productive branches, but most models still behave much closer to unguided search algorithms than to neural-guided KataGo. Longer CoT or higher Token Efficiency does not necessarily imply better search. Our results identify search organization and reasoning-resource allocation as missing dimensions in LLM reasoning evaluation.