搜索结果：Thinking

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, it demonstrates capabilities comparable to human intelligence, with significant potential to transform education and workforce development. This study evaluates OpenAI o1-preview's ability to perform higher-order cognitive tasks across 14 dimensions, including critical thinking, systems thinking, computational thinking, design thinking, metacognition, data literacy, creative thinking, abstract reasoning, quantitative reasoning, logical reasoning, analogical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. We used validated instruments like the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test and the Biological Systems Thinking Test to compare the o1-preview's performance with human performance systematically. Our findings reveal that o1-preview outperforms humans in most categories, achieving 150% better results in systems thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, scientific reasoning, and abstract reasoning. However, compared to humans, it underperforms by around 25% in logical reasoning, critical thinking, and quantitative reasoning. In analogical reasoning, both o1-preview and humans achieved perfect scores. Despite thes

Thinking mode has always been regarded as one of the most valuable modes in LLMs. However, we uncover a surprising and previously overlooked phenomenon: LLMs with thinking mode are more easily broken by Jailbreak attack. We evaluate 9 LLMs on AdvBench and HarmBench and find that the success rate of attacking thinking mode in LLMs is almost higher than that of non-thinking mode. Through large numbers of sample studies, it is found that for educational purposes and excessively long thinking lengths are the characteristics of successfully attacked data, and LLMs also give harmful answers when they mostly know that the questions are harmful. In order to alleviate the above problems, this paper proposes a method of safe thinking intervention for LLMs, which explicitly guides the internal thinking processes of LLMs by adding "specific thinking tokens" of LLMs to the prompt. The results demonstrate that the safe thinking intervention can significantly reduce the attack success rate of LLMs with thinking mode.

Recent advances have shown success in eliciting strong reasoning abilities in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) through rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) with outcome rewards. However, this paradigm typically lacks supervision over the thinking process leading to the final outcome. As a result, the model may learn sub-optimal reasoning strategies, which can hinder its generalization ability. In light of this, we propose SophiaVL-R1, as an attempt to add reward signals for the thinking process in this paradigm. To achieve this, we first train a thinking reward model that evaluates the quality of the entire thinking process. Given that the thinking reward may be unreliable for certain samples due to reward hacking, we propose the Trust-GRPO method, which assigns a trustworthiness weight to the thinking reward during training. This weight is computed based on the thinking reward comparison of responses leading to correct answers versus incorrect answers, helping to mitigate the impact of potentially unreliable thinking rewards. Moreover, we design an annealing training strategy that gradually reduces the thinking reward over time, allowing the model to rely more on the acc

People increasingly turn to conversational agents such as ChatGPT to seek guidance for their personal problems. As these systems grow in capability, many now display elements of "thinking": short reflective statements that reveal a model's intentions or values before responding. While initially introduced to promote transparency, such visible thinking can also anthropomorphise the agent and shape user expectations. Yet little is known about how these displays affect user perceptions in help-seeking contexts. We conducted a 3 x 2 mixed design experiment examining the impact of 'Thinking Content' (None, Emotionally-Supportive, Expertise-Supportive) and 'Conversation Context' (Habit-related vs. Feelings-related problems) on users' perceptions of empathy, warmth, competence, and engagement. Participants interacted with a chatbot that either showed no visible thinking or presented value-oriented reflections prior to its response. Our findings contribute to understanding how thinking transparency influences user experience in supportive dialogues, and offer implications for designing conversational agents that communicate intentions in sensitive, help-seeking scenarios.

Eliciting reasoning has emerged as a powerful technique for improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks by inducing thinking. However, their effectiveness in realistic user-engaged agent scenarios remains unclear. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive study on the effect of explicit thinking in user-engaged LLM agents. Our experiments span across seven models, three benchmarks, and two thinking instantiations, and we evaluate them through both a quantitative response taxonomy analysis and qualitative failure propagation case studies. Contrary to expectations, we find that mandatory thinking often backfires on agents in user-engaged settings, causing anomalous performance degradation across various LLMs. Our key finding reveals that thinking makes agents more ``introverted'' by shortening responses and reducing information disclosure to users, which weakens agent-user information exchange and leads to downstream task failures. Furthermore, we demonstrate that explicitly prompting for information disclosure reliably improves performance across diverse model families, suggesting that proactive transparency is a vital lever for agent optimization. Ove

The rapid advancement of technology and science education demands innovative approaches to develop students' critical and creative thinking skills. However, there is limited systematic evidence about the effectiveness of different physics teaching materials in fostering these essential 21st century skills. This study aims to investigate the effect of physics teaching materials on critical thinking skills and creative thinking skills of high school students through a comprehensive meta-analysis of recent research. Using purposive sampling, 20 articles from national journals published between 2019-2023 were analyzed. The results revealed three key findings: (1) physics teaching materials showed varying degrees of effectiveness across different formats, with modules and student worksheets demonstrating the highest effect sizes (3.93 and 3.97 respectively); (2) physics teaching materials significantly enhanced students' critical thinking skills with a high effect size category (3.97); and (3) these materials effectively improved creative thinking skills with a high effect size category (2.97). These findings provide valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers in designing

Large language models often solve complex reasoning tasks more effectively with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), but at the cost of long, low-bandwidth token sequences. Humans, by contrast, often reason softly by maintaining a distribution over plausible next steps. Motivated by this, we propose Multiplex Thinking, a stochastic soft reasoning mechanism that, at each thinking step, samples K candidate tokens and aggregates their embeddings into a single continuous multiplex token. This preserves the vocabulary embedding prior and the sampling dynamics of standard discrete generation, while inducing a tractable probability distribution over multiplex rollouts. Consequently, multiplex trajectories can be directly optimized with on-policy reinforcement learning (RL). Importantly, Multiplex Thinking is self-adaptive: when the model is confident, the multiplex token is nearly discrete and behaves like standard CoT; when it is uncertain, it compactly represents multiple plausible next steps without increasing sequence length. Across challenging math reasoning benchmarks, Multiplex Thinking consistently outperforms strong discrete CoT and RL baselines from Pass@1 through Pass@1024, while producing

Human cognition is theorized to operate in two modes: fast, intuitive System 1 thinking and slow, deliberate System 2 thinking. While current Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) excel at System 2 thinking, their inability to perform fast thinking leads to high computational overhead and latency. In this work, we enable LRMs to approximate human intelligence through dynamic thinking speed adjustment, optimizing accuracy-efficiency trade-offs. Our approach addresses two key questions: (1) how to control thinking speed in LRMs, and (2) when to adjust it for optimal performance. For the first question, we identify the steering vector that governs slow-fast thinking transitions in LRMs' representation space. Using this vector, we achieve the first representation editing-based test-time scaling effect, outperforming existing prompt-based scaling methods. For the second question, we apply real-time difficulty estimation to signal reasoning segments of varying complexity. Combining these techniques, we propose the first reasoning strategy that enables fast processing of easy steps and deeper analysis for complex reasoning. Without any training or additional cost, our plug-in module delivers an a

Current work in language models (LMs) helps us speed up or even skip thinking by accelerating and automating cognitive work. But can LMs help us with critical thinking -- thinking in deeper, more reflective ways which challenge assumptions, clarify ideas, and engineer new concepts? We treat philosophy as a case study in critical thinking, and interview 21 professional philosophers about how they engage in critical thinking and on their experiences with LMs. We find that philosophers do not find LMs to be useful because they lack a sense of selfhood (memory, beliefs, consistency) and initiative (curiosity, proactivity). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools to characterize this gap. Using the model, we formulate three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent. We hope that our work inspires LM researchers to further develop LMs as critical thinking tools and philosophers and other 'critical thinkers' to imagine intellectually substantive uses of LMs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as intelligent tutoring systems, yet research on optimizing LLMs specifically for educational contexts remains limited. Recent works have proposed reinforcement learning approaches for training LLM tutors, but these methods focus solely on optimizing visible responses while neglecting the model's internal thinking process. We introduce PedagogicalRL-Thinking, a framework that extends pedagogical alignment to reasoning LLMs in education through two novel approaches: (1) Pedagogical Reasoning Prompting, which guides internal reasoning using domain-specific educational theory rather than generic instructions; and (2) Thinking Reward, which explicitly evaluates and reinforces the pedagogical quality of the model's reasoning traces. Our experiments reveal that domain-specific, theory-grounded prompting outperforms generic prompting, and that Thinking Reward is most effective when combined with pedagogical prompting. Furthermore, models trained only on mathematics tutoring dialogues show improved performance on educational benchmarks not seen during training, while preserving the base model's factual knowledge. Our quantitative and q

Visual thinking should not only sound right; it should show its evidence. While recent vision-language models (VLMs) can produce natural-language reasoning traces, these traces often leave the supporting image regions implicit, making them hard to verify and difficult to supervise. We introduce visually grounded thinking, a reasoning process in which models interleave natural-language thoughts with explicit point or box groundings of the visual evidence used at each step. This lets the model express intermediate reasoning in language while grounding key objects in the image regions they refer to. To train this behavior, we construct a scalable synthesis pipeline that distills correct visual reasoning traces, extracts the visual objects required by the traces, grounds them with a SAM3-based agent, and derives aligned point and box supervision from the resulting masks. We further propose grounding-aware reinforcement learning, which combines answer correctness rewards with dense grounding rewards that score whether generated object references match the correct image evidence. Across two counting benchmarks and four spatial reasoning benchmarks, adding visually grounded thinking to Ge

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning typically utilizes the discrete language space for thinking, which is inherently inefficient, as many generated tokens only enforce linguistic rules that are not required for reasoning. To bypass this, latent-space thinking allows models to think using the continuous embedding space. While existing methods for training those models show domain-specific gains, they fail to maintain performance in complex tasks, such as mathematical reasoning. We experimentally demonstrate that the Coconut approach, a form of supervised fine-tuning for latent-space thinking, is highly sensitive to design choices and exhibits several inherent limitations. To address these issues, we investigate reinforcement learning (RL) techniques -- an underexplored direction in latent-space thinking -- including GRPO and design a novel Latent RL method for directly optimizing the latent thinking steps. Our experimental results reveal that these RL-trained models still lag behind traditional language-space CoT models in the mathematical reasoning domain. We make our codebase publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) face inherent performance bottlenecks under parameter constraints, particularly in processing critical tokens that demand complex reasoning. Empirical analysis reveals challenging tokens induce abrupt gradient spikes across layers, exposing architectural stress points in standard Transformers. Building on this insight, we propose Inner Thinking Transformer (ITT), which reimagines layer computations as implicit thinking steps. ITT dynamically allocates computation through Adaptive Token Routing, iteratively refines representations via Residual Thinking Connections, and distinguishes reasoning phases using Thinking Step Encoding. ITT enables deeper processing of critical tokens without parameter expansion. Evaluations across 162M-466M parameter models show ITT achieves 96.5\% performance of a 466M Transformer using only 162M parameters, reduces training data by 43.2\%, and outperforms Transformer/Loop variants in 11 benchmarks. By enabling elastic computation allocation during inference, ITT balances performance and efficiency through architecture-aware optimization of implicit thinking pathways.

While recent success of large reasoning models (LRMs) significantly advanced LLMs' reasoning capability by optimizing the final answer accuracy using reinforcement learning, they may also drastically increase the output length due to overthinking, characterized by unnecessarily complex reasoning paths that waste computation and potentially degrade the performance. We hypothesize that such inefficiencies stem from LRMs' limited capability to dynamically select the proper modular reasoning strategies, termed thinking patterns at the right position. To investigate this hypothesis, we propose a dynamic optimization framework that segments model-generated reasoning paths into distinct thinking patterns, systematically identifying and promoting beneficial patterns that improve the answer while removing detrimental ones. Empirical analysis confirms that our optimized thinking paths yield more concise yet sufficiently informative trajectories, enhancing reasoning efficiency by reducing attention FLOPs by up to 47% while maintaining accuracy for originally correct responses. Moreover, a non-trivial portion of originally incorrect responses are transformed into correct ones, achieving a 15.6

Level-k thinking has been widely applied as a solution concept for games in normal form in behavioral and experimental game theory. We consider level-k thinking in games in extensive form. Player's may learn about levels of opponents' thinking during the play of the game because some information sets may be inconsistent with certain levels. In particular, for any information set reached, a level-k player attaches the maximum level-l thinking for l < k to her opponents consistent with the information set. We compare our notion of strong level-k thinking with other solution concepts such as level-k thinking in the associated normal form, strong rationalizability, Delta-rationalizability, iterated admissibility, backward rationalizability, backward level-k thinking, and backward induction. We use strong level-k thinking to reanalyze data from some prior experiments in the literature.

Hybrid thinking enables LLMs to switch between reasoning and direct answering, offering a balance between efficiency and reasoning capability. Yet our experiments reveal that current hybrid thinking LLMs only achieve partial mode separation: reasoning behaviors often leak into the no-think mode. To understand and mitigate this, we analyze the factors influencing controllability and identify four that matter most: (1) larger data scale, (2) using think and no-think answers from different questions rather than the same question, (3) a moderate increase in no-think data number, and (4) a two-phase strategy that first trains reasoning ability and then applies hybrid think training. Building on these findings, we propose a practical recipe that, compared to standard training, can maintain accuracy in both modes while significantly reducing no-think output length (from $1085$ to $585$ on MATH500) and occurrences of reasoning-supportive tokens such as ``\texttt{wait}'' (from $5917$ to $522$ on MATH500). Our findings highlight the limitations of current hybrid thinking and offer directions for strengthening its controllability.

Recent deep-thinking large language models often reason extensively to improve performance, but such lengthy reasoning is not always desirable, as it incurs excessive inference costs with disproportionate performance gains. Controlling reasoning length without sacrificing performance is therefore important, but remains challenging, especially under tight thinking budgets. We propose budget guidance, a simple yet effective method for steering the reasoning process of LLMs toward a target budget without requiring any LLM fine-tuning. Our approach introduces a lightweight predictor that models a Gamma distribution over the remaining thinking length during next-token generation. This signal is then used to guide generation in a soft, token-level manner, ensuring that the overall reasoning trace adheres to the specified thinking budget. Budget guidance enables natural control of the thinking length, along with significant token efficiency improvements over baseline methods on challenging math benchmarks. For instance, it achieves up to a 26% accuracy gain on the MATH-500 benchmark under tight budgets compared to baseline methods, while maintaining competitive accuracy with only 63% of t

Human inertial thinking schemes can be formed through learning, which are then applied to quickly solve similar problems later. However, when problems are significantly different, inertial thinking generally presents the solutions that are definitely imperfect. In such cases, people will apply creative thinking, such as reverse thinking, to solve problems. Similarly, machine learning methods also form inertial thinking schemes through learning the knowledge from a large amount of data. However, when the testing data are vastly difference, the formed inertial thinking schemes will inevitably generate errors. This kind of inertial thinking is called illusion inertial thinking. Because all machine learning methods do not consider illusion inertial thinking, in this paper we propose a new method that uses reverse thinking to correct illusion inertial thinking, which increases the generalization ability of machine learning methods. Experimental results on benchmark datasets are used to validate the proposed method.

Text and 2D-conditioning interfaces provide weak, ambiguous control over spatial transformations in image editing -- particularly under large object motions and camera changes. Prior work has used 3D primitives such as boxes, but only as loose conditioning signals indicating approximate object location rather than specifying the transformation. We instead use 3D boxes as structured specifications: the user provides the input and output boxes of the edit, casting editing as a well-posed geometry problem. This ``thinking in boxes'' interface, where each box face is color-coded to convey 3D orientation, gives precise control over translation, rotation, scaling, and viewpoint changes in real images while preserving scene and object identity, and recovering previously unseen object regions. To ground transformations in scene appearance, we introduce a depth-aligned planar floor as a global reference frame, shaded with depth-aware cues. Conditioned on this structure, an image generator produces consistent results under large transformations. Trained in two stages -- on synthetic multi-object scenes and a small set of real-world videos from Objectron -- the system generalizes to complex,