Not Just the Destination, But the Journey: Reasoning Traces Causally Shape Generalization Behaviors

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is often viewed as a window into LLM decision-making, yet recent work suggests it may function merely as post-hoc rationalization. This raises a critical alignment question: Does the reasoning trace causally shape model generalization independent of the final answer? To isolate reasoning's causal effect, we design a controlled experiment holding final harmful answers constant while varying reasoning paths. We construct datasets with \textit{Evil} reasoning embracing malice, \textit{Misleading} reasoning rationalizing harm, and \textit{Submissive} reasoning yielding to pressure. We train models (0.6B--14B parameters) under multiple paradigms, including question-thinking-answer (QTA), question-thinking (QT), and thinking-only (T-only), and evaluate them in both think and no-think modes. We find that: (1) CoT training could amplify harmful generalization more than standard fine-tuning; (2) distinct reasoning types induce distinct behavioral patterns aligned with their semantics, despite identical final answers; (3) training on reasoning without answer supervision (QT or T-only) is sufficient to alter behavior, proving reasoning carries an independent signal; and (4) these effects persist even when generating answers without reasoning, indicating deep internalization. Our findings demonstrate that reasoning content is causally potent, challenging alignment strategies that supervise only outputs.

What, Whether and How? Unveiling Process Reward Models for Thinking with Images Reasoning

The rapid advancement of Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) has demonstrated excellent abilities in various visual tasks. Building upon these developments, the thinking with images paradigm has emerged, enabling models to dynamically edit and re-encode visual information at each reasoning step, mirroring human visual processing. However, this paradigm introduces significant challenges as diverse errors may occur during reasoning processes. This necessitates Process Reward Models (PRMs) for distinguishing positive and negative reasoning steps, yet existing benchmarks for PRMs are predominantly text-centric and lack comprehensive assessment under this paradigm. To address these gaps, this work introduces the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed for evaluating PRMs under the thinking with images paradigm. Our main contributions are: (1) Through extensive analysis of reasoning trajectories and guided search experiments with PRMs, we define 7 fine-grained error types and demonstrate both the necessity for specialized PRMs and the potential for improvement. (2) We construct a comprehensive benchmark comprising 1,206 manually annotated thinking with images reasoning trajectories spanning 4 categories and 16 subcategories for fine-grained evaluation of PRMs. (3) Our experimental analysis reveals that current LVLMs fall short as effective PRMs, exhibiting limited capabilities in visual reasoning process evaluation with significant performance disparities across error types, positive evaluation bias, and sensitivity to reasoning step positions. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of our benchmark and establish crucial foundations for advancing PRMs in LVLMs.

Glance-or-Gaze: Incentivizing LMMs to Adaptively Focus Search via Reinforcement Learning

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have achieved remarkable success in visual understanding, yet they struggle with knowledge-intensive queries involving long-tail entities or evolving information due to static parametric knowledge. Recent search-augmented approaches attempt to address this limitation, but existing methods rely on indiscriminate whole-image retrieval that introduces substantial visual redundancy and noise, and lack deep iterative reflection, limiting their effectiveness on complex visual queries. To overcome these challenges, we propose Glance-or-Gaze (GoG), a fully autonomous framework that shifts from passive perception to active visual planning. GoG introduces a Selective Gaze mechanism that dynamically chooses whether to glance at global context or gaze into high-value regions, filtering irrelevant information before retrieval. We design a dual-stage training strategy: Reflective GoG Behavior Alignment via supervised fine-tuning instills the fundamental GoG paradigm, while Complexity-Adaptive Reinforcement Learning further enhances the model's capability to handle complex queries through iterative reasoning. Experiments across six benchmarks demonstrate state-of-the-art performance. Ablation studies confirm that both Selective Gaze and complexity-adaptive RL are essential for effective visual search. We will release our data and models for further exploration soon.

LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated exceptional logical capabilities in mathematical domains, their application to the legal field remains hindered by the strict requirements for procedural rigor and adherence to legal logic. Existing legal LLMs, which rely on "closed-loop reasoning" derived solely from internal parametric knowledge, frequently suffer from lack of self-awareness regarding their knowledge boundaries, leading to confident yet incorrect conclusions. To address this challenge, we present Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS), the first framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry". By integrating Introspective Imitation Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning complexity. Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32\%, with the most substantial gains observed in tasks requiring deep reasoning with reliable knowledge. We will release our data and models for further exploration soon.

AM$^3$Safety: Towards Data Efficient Alignment of Multi-modal Multi-turn Safety for MLLMs

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive applications. However, their safety vulnerabilities become pronounced in multi-turn multi-modal scenarios, where harmful intent can be gradually reconstructed across turns, and security protocols fade into oblivion as the conversation progresses. Existing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) alignment methods are largely developed for single-turn visual question-answer (VQA) task and often require costly manual preference annotations, limiting their effectiveness and scalability in dialogues. To address this challenge, we present InterSafe-V, an open-source multi-modal dialogue dataset containing 11,270 dialogues and 500 specially designed refusal VQA samples. This dataset, constructed through interaction between several models, is designed to more accurately reflect real-world scenarios and includes specialized VQA pairs tailored for specific domains. Building on this dataset, we propose AM$^3$Safety, a framework that combines a cold-start refusal phase with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) fine-tuning using turn-aware dual-objective rewards across entire dialogues. Experiments on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct and LLaVA-NeXT-7B show more than 10\% decrease in Attack Success Rate (ASR) together with an increment of at least 8\% in harmless dimension and over 13\% in helpful dimension of MLLMs on multi-modal multi-turn safety benchmarks, while preserving their general abilities.