Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) across domains, yet a reported score reflects a complete model--harness--environment configuration rather than the model alone. Benchmark packages couple native tasks with specific prompts, tool protocols, orchestration logic, and sometimes dynamic external resources, making cross-benchmark comparisons sensitive to implementation and resource conditions. We present UniACE, a unified framework for model-centric evaluation under an explicit, common execution condition. UniACE represents each benchmark as an instruction--tool--environment triplet, executes LLMs through a shared, task-agnostic harness in isolated per-task runtimes, and preserves native success criteria. For tasks that rely on dynamic resources, an optional offline mode replaces live access with fixed, pre-collected snapshots. Its evaluation protocol further standardizes efficiency measurement, execution records, and trace-based failure attribution. We migrate 7 benchmarks spanning 24 domains and evaluate 15 models in more than 400K rollouts consuming 5B tokens. Comparisons with source implementations show large bidirectional score changes and model-ranking reversals, while matched online and offline runs reveal substantial sensitivity to accessible evidence and its representation. Under the shared UniACE configuration, efficiency and failure profiles expose task-dependent model behaviors hidden by task-success scores alone. These findings motivate reporting agent benchmark outcomes as properties of an explicit evaluation configuration, enabling more interpretable and reproducible cross-benchmark comparisons. Codes and benchmarks at are available at https://github.com/whfeLingYu/A-Unified-Framework-for-the-Evaluation-of-LLM-Agentic-Capabilities, https://huggingface.co/datasets/whfeLingYu/Unified_Agent_Framework.
Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li, Yaxing Lyu et al.· 0 citations
Despite the remarkable success of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) across diverse tasks, the internal mechanisms governing how they encode and ground distinct visual concepts remain poorly understood. To unravel these mechanisms, we propose a causal framework based on activation steering to actively probe and manipulate internal visual representations. Through systematic intervention across four visual concept categories, our results reveal a divergence in concept encoding: entity knowledge is distinctively localized, whereas abstract concepts are globally distributed across the network. Critically, this divergence uncovers a mechanistic driver of scaling laws: increasing model depth is indispensable for encoding distributed and complex abstract concepts, whereas entities maintain a consistently high degree of localization. Furthermore, reverse steering uncovers that blocking explicit output triggers a surge in latent activations, exposing a compensatory mechanism between perception and generation. Finally, by extending our analysis to visual reasoning, we expose a disconnect between perception and reasoning: although MLLMs successfully recognize geometric relations, they treat them merely as static visual features, failing to trigger the procedural execution necessary for solving problems.
Zehao Deng, Tianjie Ju, Zheng Wu et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal recommendation systems (MRS) jointly model user-item interaction graphs and rich item content, but this tight coupling makes user data difficult to remove once learned. Approximate machine unlearning offers an efficient alternative to full retraining, yet current MRS unlearning applies reverse updates largely uniformly across model components. We show that this uniform treatment is misaligned with modern MRS: deleted-data influence is distributed unevenly across \textit{ranking behavior}, \textit{modality branches}, and \textit{model modules}. This non-uniformity gives rise to three bottlenecks in MRS unlearning: target-item persistence in the collaborative graph, modality imbalance across feature branches, and concentrated module-level sensitivity in the parameter space. To address this mismatch, we propose \textbf{targeted reverse update} (TRU), a plug-and-play unlearning framework for MRS. Instead of applying a uniform global reversal, TRU performs three coordinated interventions across the model hierarchy: a ranking fusion gate to suppress residual target-item influence in ranking, branch-wise modality scaling to preserve retained multimodal representations, and capacity-aware parameter-group selection to localize reverse updates to deletion-sensitive modules. Across two backbones, three datasets, and three unlearning regimes, TRU achieves a stronger retain--forget trade-off than MMRecUn in most settings. In two challenging user-level cases, TRU also attains favorable operating points among all evaluated baselines. Security audits report the lowest MIA BalAcc and a tie for the lowest ASR among approximate methods in both audited settings, while wall-clock trajectories show earlier convergence to favorable retain--forget regions.
Zhanting Zhou, KaHou Tam, Zeyu Ma et al.· 0 citations
Distilling reasoning capabilities from Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) into smaller models is typically constrained by the limitations of rejection sampling. Standard methods treat the teacher as a static filter, discarding complex "corner-case" problems where the teacher fails to explore valid solutions independently, thereby creating an artificial "Teacher Ceiling" for the student. In this work, we propose Hindsight Entropy-Assisted Learning (HEAL), an RL-free framework designed to bridge this reasoning gap. Drawing on the educational theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), HEAL synergizes three core modules: (1) Guided Entropy-Assisted Repair (GEAR), an active intervention mechanism that detects critical reasoning breakpoints via entropy dynamics and injects targeted hindsight hints to repair broken trajectories; (2) Perplexity-Uncertainty Ratio Estimator (PURE), a ratio-based filtering heuristic that reduces high-anomaly shortcut-like rationales; and (3) Progressive Answer-guided Curriculum Evolution (PACE), a three-stage distillation strategy that organizes training from foundational alignment to hard-case adaptation. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that HEAL significantly outperforms traditional SFT distillation and other baselines.
Wenjing Zhang, Jiangze Yan, Jieyun Huang et al.· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
Language models exhibit fundamental limitations -- hallucination, brittleness, and lack of formal grounding -- that are particularly problematic in high-stakes specialist fields requiring verifiable reasoning. I investigate whether formal domain ontologies can enhance language model reliability through retrieval-augmented generation. Using mathematics as proof of concept, I implement a neuro-symbolic pipeline leveraging the OpenMath ontology with hybrid retrieval and cross-encoder reranking to inject relevant definitions into model prompts. Evaluation on the MATH benchmark with three open-source models reveals that ontology-guided context improves performance when retrieval quality is high, but irrelevant context actively degrades it -- highlighting both the promise and challenges of neuro-symbolic approaches.
Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit high variance in their reasoning trajectories. Process verification, which evaluates intermediate steps in trajectories, has shown promise in general reasoning settings, and has been suggested as a potential tool for guiding coordination of MAS; however, its actual effectiveness in MAS remains unclear. To fill this gap, we present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS). Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models), evaluated across two levels of verification granularity (agent-level and iteration-level). We further examine five representative verifiers and four context management strategies, and conduct experiments over six diverse MAS frameworks on multiple reasoning benchmarks. We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance, highlighting the difficulty of reliably evaluating partial multi-agent trajectories. Among the methods studied, LLM-as-a-Judge generally outperforms reward-based approaches, with trained judges surpassing general-purpose LLMs. We further observe a small performance gap between LLMs acting as judges and as single agents, and identify a context-length-performance trade-off in verification. Overall, our results suggest that effective and robust process verification for MAS remains an open challenge, requiring further advances beyond current paradigms. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/MAS-ProVe.
Vishal Venkataramani, Haizhou Shi, Zixuan Ke et al.· 0 citations
Conversational diagnosis requires multi-turn history-taking, where an agent asks clarifying questions to refine differential diagnoses under incomplete information. Existing approaches often rely on the parametric knowledge of a model or assume that patients provide rich and concrete information, which is unrealistic. To address these limitations, we propose a conversational diagnosis system that explores a diagnostic knowledge graph to reason in two steps: (i) generating diagnostic hypotheses from the dialogue context, and (ii) verifying hypotheses through clarifying questions, which are repeated until a final diagnosis is reached. Since evaluating the system requires a realistic patient simulator that responds to the system's questions, we adopt PatientSim, a persona-driven patient simulator, together with patient profiles from MIMIC-IV. We further adapt it with low-specificity symptom reporting to reflect how real-world patients describe symptoms vaguely during early clinical encounters. Experiments show improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency over strong baselines, and physician evaluations support the realism of our simulator and the clinical utility of the generated clarifying questions. Our code will be released upon publication.
Personalized lifestyle health analysis requires long-horizon, multi-dimensional reasoning over heterogeneous lifestyle signals, and recent advances in mobile sensing and large language models (LLMs) make such support increasingly feasible. However, the capabilities of current LLMs in this setting remain insufficiently understood due to the lack of systematic benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LifeAgentBench, a large-scale QA benchmark for long-horizon, cross-dimensional, and multi-user lifestyle health reasoning, containing 22,573 questions spanning from basic retrieval to complex reasoning. We release an extensible benchmark construction pipeline and a standardized evaluation protocol, deriving verifiable answers through executable queries and programs to support reliable assessment. We then systematically evaluate 13 representative LLMs on LifeAgentBench and identify key bottlenecks in long-horizon aggregation and cross-dimensional reasoning. Motivated by these findings, we propose LifeAgent, a tool-augmented reasoning baseline that decomposes complex queries, performs multi-step evidence retrieval, and invokes tools for deterministic aggregation. LifeAgent substantially enhances LLMs' capabilities on challenging reasoning tasks, achieving clear improvements over widely used baselines and showing potential for health reasoning in everyday scenarios. The benchmark is publicly available.
Ye Tian, Zihao Wang, Onat Gungor et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate incident response in production systems, yet single-agent approaches generate vague, unusable recommendations. We present MyAntFarm.ai, a reproducible containerized framework demonstrating that multi-agent orchestration fundamentally transforms LLM-based incident response quality. Through 348 controlled trials comparing single-agent copilot versus multi-agent systems on identical incident scenarios, we find that multi-agent orchestration achieves 100% actionable recommendation rate versus 1.7% for single-agent approaches, an 80 times improvement in action specificity and 140 times improvement in solution correctness. Critically, multi-agent systems exhibit zero quality variance across all trials, enabling production SLA commitments impossible with inconsistent single-agent outputs. Both architectures achieve similar comprehension latency (approx.40s), establishing that the architectural value lies in deterministic quality, not speed. We introduce Decision Quality (DQ), a novel metric capturing validity, specificity, and correctness properties essential for operational deployment that existing LLM metrics do not address. These findings reframe multi-agent orchestration from a performance optimization to a production-readiness requirement for LLM-based incident response. All code, Docker configurations, and trial data are publicly available for reproduction.
Large language models (LLMs) excel at reasoning but struggle with knowledge-intensive questions due to limited context and parametric knowledge. However, existing methods that rely on finetuned LLMs or GNN retrievers are limited by dataset-specific tuning and scalability on large or unseen graphs. We propose the LLM-KGFR collaborative framework, where an LLM works with a structured retriever, the Knowledge Graph Foundation Retriever (KGFR). KGFR encodes relations using LLM-generated descriptions and initializes entities based on their roles in the question, enabling zero-shot generalization to unseen KGs. To handle large graphs efficiently, it employs Asymmetric Progressive Propagation (APP)- a stepwise expansion that selectively limits high-degree nodes while retaining informative paths. Through node-, edge-, and path-level interfaces, the LLM iteratively requests candidate answers, supporting facts, and reasoning paths, forming a controllable reasoning loop. Experiments demonstrate that LLM-KGFR achieves strong performance while maintaining scalability and generalization, providing a practical solution for KG-augmented reasoning.
Yuanning Cui, Zequn Sun, Wei Hu et al.· 0 citations
Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (HUman-Grounded AGENT Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent combines structured questionnaires with semi-structured think-aloud interviews to collect ecologically valid belief states, belief updates, and reasoning traces from human participants. Our experiments reveal a clear asymmetry: models recover a person's belief state from their own context reasonably well, but struggle to predict belief updates under intervention. Cross-person and cross-domain controls trace this gap to associative matching within a topic rather than identity-consistent reasoning, suggesting that progress requires better-calibrated change detection, not simply more context. We scope the benchmark to self-reported belief reasoning in three policy domains: healthcare, surveillance, and zoning. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://github.com/jajamoa/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://github.com/jajamoa/trace-your-thinking).
Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong abilities in writing and revising programs, yet many program-synthesis benchmarks still evaluate programs in symbolic or digital environments. We introduce compositional machine design, a physically grounded form of program synthesis where machines are written as programs that compose standardized parts, and success is determined by simulated physical behavior. To study this problem, we present BesiegeField, a testbed built on the machine-building game Besiege. In BesiegeField, LLM agents generate machine programs from textual functional demands, execute the resulting machines in simulation, and receive rewards and state feedback. We benchmark LLM agents across representative machine-design tasks under single-agent generation, iterative editing, and hierarchical workflows. Strong models recover task-relevant structures and sometimes achieve nontrivial physical performance, but often struggle with spatially precise assembly, mechanism-level planning, and translating feedback into useful structural edits. We further finetune Qwen2.5-14B, an open-source LLM, with reinforcement learning from simulation-derived rewards. We find that, under a fixed generation budget, RL improves the best machine discovered. We additionally evaluate human performance to provide a reference point for task difficulty. These results establish compositional machine design as a testbed for studying LLM agents that synthesize executable machine programs and improve them through physical feedback.
Wenqian Zhang, Yangyi Huang, Weiyang Liu et al.· 0 citations
