Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming diverse fields and gaining increasing influence as human proxies. This development underscores the urgent need for evaluating value orientations and understanding of LLMs to ensure their responsible integration into public-facing applications. This work introduces ValueBench, the first comprehensive psychometric benchmark for evaluating value orientations and value understanding in LLMs. ValueBench collects data from 44 established psychometric inventories, encompassing 453 multifaceted value dimensions. We propose an evaluation pipeline grounded in realistic human-AI interactions to probe value orientations, along with novel tasks for evaluating value understanding in an open-ended value space. With extensive experiments conducted on six representative LLMs, we unveil their shared and distinctive value orientations and exhibit their ability to approximate expert conclusions in value-related extraction and generation tasks. ValueBench is openly accessible at https://github.com/Value4AI/ValueBench.

Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.

Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice. We report a blinded evaluation built on 620 Real-world Point-Of-Care Queries (Real-POCQi) submitted to the OpenEvidence (OE) platform by physicians spanning 30 specialties, as well as 187 questions from HealthBench. 149 practicing physicians across 36 states made head-to-head comparisons between answers from three frontier general-purpose models (Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5) and a specialized clinical tool (OE), with graders matched to each question's specialty. When comparing answers along five dimensions relevant to clinical decision support -- accuracy, clinical utility, source quality, verifiability, & completeness -- physicians scored the specialized tool highest on all axes; in the primary analysis on Real-POCQi, win differences (margins between win and loss rates) ranged from 25 to 39 percentage points (p<0.001). Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses stratifying by citation display, answer length, OE-user status, and Real-POCQi versus HealthBench. In parallel, LLM judges were found to systematically differ from expert judges, though both generally agreed on the best model. These findings underscore two conclusions: (i) AI tool evaluations should reflect real-world query distributions and use expert judges that mirror the specialization defining modern medicine and (ii) the consistent advantage of the specialized tool over general-purpose models does not necessarily mean that the latter cannot serve similar purposes, but that targeted engineering and customization can yield meaningful gains in performance for its users. We release Real-POCQi as a public benchmark, as well as the prespecified statistical analysis for reproducing results of this study.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to a medical-domain benchmark, validating JADE across professional domains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Artificial intelligence has advanced in Medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA), but prevalent research tends to focus on the accuracy of the answers, often overlooking the reasoning paths and interpretability, which are crucial in clinical settings. Besides, current Med-VQA algorithms, typically reliant on singular models, lack the robustness needed for real-world medical diagnostics which usually require collaborative expert evaluation. To address these shortcomings, this paper presents MedCoT, a novel hierarchical expert verification reasoning chain method designed to enhance interpretability and accuracy in biomedical imaging inquiries. MedCoT is predicated on two principles: The necessity for explicit reasoning paths in Med-VQA and the requirement for multi-expert review to formulate accurate conclusions. The methodology involves an Initial Specialist proposing diagnostic rationales, followed by a Follow-up Specialist who validates these rationales, and finally, a consensus is reached through a vote among a sparse Mixture of Experts within the locally deployed Diagnostic Specialist, which then provides the definitive diagnosis. Experimental evaluations on four standard Med-VQA datasets demonstrate that MedCoT surpasses existing state-of-the-art approaches, providing significant improvements in performance and interpretability.

Recent attempts to combine large language models (LLMs) with causal discovery ask models to infer pairwise directions, propose graph structures, or inject language-model outputs as priors and constraints. These approaches promise faster analysis, but they also obscure whether a causal evidence is supported by data and assumptions or by textual associations, prompt artifacts and hallucinated mechanisms. We argue for a different role for agents in causal discovery. Agents should inspect data, retrieve context, explain method assumptions and clarify graph outputs, but they should not supply edges, orientations, priors, constraints or causal conclusions. We propose the principle that agents assist the workflow, while causal claims remain grounded in data, explicit assumptions, formal algorithms, diagnostics and user or domain-expert decisions. We instantiate this principle in causal-learn+, an online platform that coordinates data analysis, preprocessing, method recommendation, expert-knowledge incorporation, formal discovery and interpretation around the algorithmic ecosystem of causal-learn. A case study on Big Five personality data illustrates agent-assisted pipeline of causal discovery without turning language-model unreliability into causal evidence. The platform is available at causallearn.com.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are advancing computational pathology with superior visual understanding capabilities. However, current systems often reduce diagnosis to directly output conclusions without verifiable evidence-linked reasoning, which severely limits clinical trust and hinders expert error rectification. To address these barriers, we construct PathReasoner, the first large-scale dataset of whole-slide image (WSI) reasoning. Unlike previous work reliant on unverified distillation, we develop a rigorous knowledge-guided generation pipeline. By leveraging medical knowledge graphs, we explicitly align structured pathological findings and clinical reasoning with diagnoses, generating over 20K high-quality instructional samples. Based on the database, we propose PathReasoner-R1, which synergizes trajectory-masked supervised fine-tuning with reasoning-oriented reinforcement learning to instill structured chain-of-thought capabilities. To ensure medical rigor, we engineer a knowledge-aware multi-granular reward function incorporating an Entity Reward mechanism strictly aligned with knowledge graphs. This effectively guides the model to optimize for logical consistency rather than mere outcome matching, thereby enhancing robustness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PathReasoner-R1 achieves state-of-the-art performance on both PathReasoner and public benchmarks across various image scales, equipping pathology models with transparent, clinically grounded reasoning capabilities. Dataset and code are available at https://github.com/cyclexfy/PathReasoner-R1.

We introduce RJUA-QA, a novel medical dataset for question answering (QA) and reasoning with clinical evidence, contributing to bridge the gap between general large language models (LLMs) and medical-specific LLM applications. RJUA-QA is derived from realistic clinical scenarios and aims to facilitate LLMs in generating reliable diagnostic and advice. The dataset contains 2,132 curated Question-Context-Answer pairs, corresponding about 25,000 diagnostic records and clinical cases. The dataset covers 67 common urological disease categories, where the disease coverage exceeds 97.6\% of the population seeking medical services in urology. Each data instance in RJUA-QA comprises: (1) a question mirroring real patient to inquiry about clinical symptoms and medical conditions, (2) a context including comprehensive expert knowledge, serving as a reference for medical examination and diagnosis, (3) a doctor response offering the diagnostic conclusion and suggested examination guidance, (4) a diagnosed clinical disease as the recommended diagnostic outcome, and (5) clinical advice providing recommendations for medical examination. RJUA-QA is the first medical QA dataset for clinical reasoning over the patient inquiries, where expert-level knowledge and experience are required for yielding diagnostic conclusions and medical examination advice. A comprehensive evaluation is conducted to evaluate the performance of both medical-specific and general LLMs on the RJUA-QA dataset.

Unbiased learning-to-rank (ULTR) is a well-established framework for learning from user clicks, which are often biased by the ranker collecting the data. While theoretically justified and extensively tested in simulation, ULTR techniques lack empirical validation, especially on modern search engines. The dataset released for the WSDM Cup 2023, collected from Baidu's search engine, offers a rare opportunity to assess the real-world performance of prominent ULTR techniques. Despite multiple submissions during the WSDM Cup 2023 and the subsequent NTCIR ULTRE-2 task, it remains unclear whether the observed improvements stem from applying ULTR or other learning techniques. We revisit and extend the available experiments. We find that unbiased learning-to-rank techniques do not bring clear performance improvements, especially compared to the stark differences brought by the choice of ranking loss and query-document features. Our experiments reveal that ULTR robustly improves click prediction. However, these gains in click prediction do not translate to enhanced ranking performance on expert relevance annotations, implying that conclusions strongly depend on how success is measured in this benchmark.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely explored for reasoning-intensive research tasks, yet resources for testing whether they can infer scientific conclusions from structured biomedical evidence remain limited. We introduce MedConclusion, a large-scale dataset of 5.7M PubMed structured abstracts for biomedical conclusion generation. Each instance pairs the non-conclusion sections of an abstract with the original author-written conclusion, providing naturally occurring supervision for evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. MedConclusion also includes journal-level metadata such as biomedical category and SJR, enabling subgroup analysis across biomedical domains. As an initial study, we evaluate diverse LLMs under conclusion and summary prompting settings and score outputs with both reference-based metrics and LLM-as-a-judge. We find that conclusion writing is behaviorally distinct from summary writing, strong models remain closely clustered under current automatic metrics, and judge identity can substantially shift absolute scores. MedConclusion provides a reusable data resource for studying scientific evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/Harvard-AI-and-Robotics-Lab/MedConclusion.

Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and "expertise" is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.

Recently, with the chain of thought (CoT) prompting, large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-3, have shown strong reasoning ability in several natural language processing tasks such as arithmetic, commonsense, and logical reasoning. However, LLMs with CoT require multi-step prompting and multi-token prediction, which is highly sensitive to individual mistakes and vulnerable to error accumulation. The above issues make the LLMs need the ability to verify the answers. In fact, after inferring conclusions in some thinking decision tasks, people often check them by re-verifying steps to avoid some mistakes. In this paper, we propose and prove that LLMs also have similar self-verification abilities. We take the conclusion obtained by CoT as one of the conditions for solving the original problem. By taking turns masking the original conditions and predicting their results, we calculate an explainable answer verification score based on whether the re-predicted conditions are correct. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method can improve the reasoning performance on various arithmetic, commonsense, and logical reasoning datasets. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/WENGSYX/Self-Verification.

Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage step-by-step reasoning to solve complex problems. Standard evaluation practice involves generating a complete reasoning trace and assessing the correctness of the final answer presented at its conclusion. In this paper, we challenge the reliance on the final answer by posing the following two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion? Can alternative reasoning paths yield different results? To answer these questions, we analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, and propose a method based on our findings. Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues. We start by prompting the model to generate continuations from the end-point of each intermediate subthought. We extract a potential answer from every completed continuation originating from different subthoughts. We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace. Analyzing the consistency among the answers derived from different subthoughts reveals characteristics that correlate with the model's confidence and correctness, suggesting potential for identifying less reliable answers. Our experiments across various LLMs and challenging mathematical reasoning datasets (AIME2024 and AIME2025) show consistent accuracy improvements, with gains reaching up to 13\% and 10\% respectively. Implementation is available at: https://github.com/hammoudhasan/SubthoughtReasoner.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.

Experts advising decision-makers are likely to display expertise which varies as a function of the problem instance. In practice, this may lead to sub-optimal or discriminatory decisions against minority cases. In this work we model such changes in depth and breadth of knowledge as a partitioning of the problem space into regions of differing expertise. We provide here new algorithms that explicitly consider and adapt to the relationship between problem instances and experts' knowledge. We first propose and highlight the drawbacks of a naive approach based on nearest neighbor queries. To address these drawbacks we then introduce a novel algorithm - expertise trees - that constructs decision trees enabling the learner to select appropriate models. We provide theoretical insights and empirically validate the improved performance of our novel approach on a range of problems for which existing methods proved to be inadequate.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to function as a judge by making final rulings based on case claims and facts, which plays a vital role in the judicial domain for supporting court decision-making and improving judicial efficiency. However, existing methods often struggle with logical errors when conducting complex legal reasoning. We propose LegalReasoner, which enhances LJP reliability through step-wise verification and correction of the reasoning process. Specifically, it first identifies dispute points to decompose complex cases, and then conducts step-wise reasoning while employing a process verifier to validate each step's logic from correctness, progressiveness, and potential perspectives. When errors are detected, expert-designed attribution and resolution strategies are applied for correction. To fine-tune LegalReasoner, we release the LegalHK dataset, containing 58,130 Hong Kong court cases with detailed annotations of dispute points, step-by-step reasoning chains, and process verification labels. Experiments demonstrate that LegalReasoner significantly improves concordance with court decisions from 72.37 to 80.27 on LLAMA-3.1-70B. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/weijiezz/LegalHK.

Although much research has focused on AI explanations to support decisions in complex information-seeking tasks such as fact-checking, the role of evidence is surprisingly under-researched. In our study, we systematically varied explanation type, AI prediction certainty, and correctness of AI system advice for non-expert participants, who evaluated the veracity of claims and AI system predictions. Participants were provided the option of easily inspecting the underlying evidence. We found that participants consistently relied on evidence to validate AI claims across all experimental conditions. When participants were presented with natural language explanations, evidence was used less frequently although they relied on it when these explanations seemed insufficient or flawed. Qualitative data suggests that participants attempted to infer evidence source reliability, despite source identities being deliberately omitted. Our results demonstrate that evidence is a key ingredient in how people evaluate the reliability of information presented by an AI system and, in combination with natural language explanations, offers valuable support for decision-making. Further research is urgently needed to understand how evidence ought to be presented and how people engage with it in practice.

Providing high quality explanations for AI predictions based on machine learning is a challenging and complex task. To work well it requires, among other factors: selecting a proper level of generality/specificity of the explanation; considering assumptions about the familiarity of the explanation beneficiary with the AI task under consideration; referring to specific elements that have contributed to the decision; making use of additional knowledge (e.g. expert evidence) which might not be part of the prediction process; and providing evidence supporting negative hypothesis. Finally, the system needs to formulate the explanation in a clearly interpretable, and possibly convincing, way. Given these considerations, ANTIDOTE fosters an integrated vision of explainable AI, where low-level characteristics of the deep learning process are combined with higher level schemes proper of the human argumentation capacity. ANTIDOTE will exploit cross-disciplinary competences in deep learning and argumentation to support a broader and innovative view of explainable AI, where the need for high-quality explanations for clinical cases deliberation is critical. As a first result of the project, we publish the Antidote CasiMedicos dataset to facilitate research on explainable AI in general, and argumentation in the medical domain in particular.

Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, this paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Several recent works seek to develop foundation models specifically for medical applications, adapting general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) via continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora. These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining (DAPT) improves performance on downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical licensing exam questions. In this paper, we compare seven public "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting regime for medical question-answering (QA) tasks. For instance, across the tasks and model pairs we consider in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs only outperform their base models in 12.1% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 49.8% of cases, and are significantly worse than their base models in the remaining 38.2% of cases. Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model head-to-head, directly against the corresponding base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons. While these basic practices are not consistently adopted in the literature, our ablations show that they substantially impact conclusions. Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art general-domain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.

AI research often requires decisions before future evidence exists: which bottleneck to attack, which direction to pursue, or where a project should be positioned. We introduce ForeSci, a temporally controlled benchmark for evaluating whether LLM agents can make such forward-looking research judgements from historical evidence. ForeSci contains 500 tasks across four fast-moving AI domains and four decision families. Each task is paired with a cutoff-aligned offline knowledge base; post-cutoff papers are hidden during generation and used only for validation. To avoid random future-event prediction, tasks are derived from pre-cutoff taxonomy branches and evidence signals, and answer-generation backbones are selected to precede the task cutoffs. We evaluate native LLMs, Hybrid RAG, and three research-agent adaptations across four backbones. Results show that explicit evidence organization improves traceability and factual support, but gains depend strongly on the decision family. Diagnostics reveal a recurring evidence-decision decoupling: agents may cite relevant evidence while forecasting the wrong research object. ForeSci turns forward-looking AI research judgement into a controlled benchmark for evaluating research agents as decision-making systems.

This article reports the results of a study examining the ability of legal and non-legal Large Language Models to perform legal analysis using the Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion framework. LLMs were tested on legal reasoning tasks involving rule analysis and analogical reasoning. The results show that LLMs can conduct basic IRAC analysis, but are limited by brief responses lacking detail, an inability to commit to answers, false confidence, and hallucinations. The study compares legal and nonlegal LLMs, identifies shortcomings, and explores traits that may hinder their ability to think like a lawyer. It also discusses the implications for legal education and practice, highlighting the need for critical thinking skills in future lawyers and the potential pitfalls of overreliance on artificial intelligence AI resulting in a loss of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering legal workflows, yet we lack a jurisdiction-specific framework to assess their baseline competence therein. We use India's public legal examinations as a transparent proxy. Our multi-year benchmark assembles objective screens from top national and state exams and evaluates open and frontier LLMs under real-world exam conditions. To probe beyond multiple-choice questions, we also include a lawyer-graded, paired-blinded study of long-form answers from the Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record exam. This is, to our knowledge, the first exam-grounded, India-specific yardstick for LLM court-readiness released with datasets and protocols. Our work shows that while frontier systems consistently clear historical cutoffs and often match or exceed recent top-scorer bands on objective exams, none surpasses the human topper on long-form reasoning. Grader notes converge on three reliability failure modes: procedural or format compliance, authority or citation discipline, and forum-appropriate voice and structure. These findings delineate where LLMs can assist (checks, cross-statute consistency, statute and precedent lookups) and where human leadership remains essential: forum-specific drafting and filing, procedural and relief strategy, reconciling authorities and exceptions, and ethical, accountable judgment.

In large organisations, identifying experts on a given topic is crucial in leveraging the internal knowledge spread across teams and departments. So-called enterprise expert retrieval systems automatically discover and structure employees' expertise based on the vast amount of heterogeneous data available about them and the work they perform. Evaluating these systems requires comprehensive ground truth expert annotations, which are hard to obtain. Therefore, the annotation process typically relies on automated recommendations of knowledge areas to validate. This case study provides an analysis of how these recommendations can impact the evaluation of expert finding systems. We demonstrate on a popular benchmark that system-validated annotations lead to overestimated performance of traditional term-based retrieval models and even invalidate comparisons with more recent neural methods. We also augment knowledge areas with synonyms to uncover a strong bias towards literal mentions of their constituent words. Finally, we propose constraints to the annotation process to prevent these biased evaluations, and show that this still allows annotation suggestions of high utility. These findings should inform benchmark creation or selection for expert finding, to guarantee meaningful comparison of methods.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures within Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive reasoning capabilities by selectively activating experts to facilitate structured cognitive processes. Despite notable advances, existing reasoning models often suffer from cognitive inefficiencies like overthinking and underthinking. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel inference-time steering methodology called Reinforcing Cognitive Experts (RICE), designed to improve reasoning performance without additional training or complex heuristics. Leveraging normalized Pointwise Mutual Information (nPMI), we systematically identify specialized experts, termed ''cognitive experts'' that orchestrate meta-level reasoning operations characterized by tokens like ''<think>''. Empirical evaluations with leading MoE-based LRMs (DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B) on rigorous quantitative and scientific reasoning benchmarks demonstrate noticeable and consistent improvements in reasoning accuracy, cognitive efficiency, and cross-domain generalization. Crucially, our lightweight approach substantially outperforms prevalent reasoning-steering techniques, such as prompt design and decoding constraints, while preserving the model's general instruction-following skills. These results highlight reinforcing cognitive experts as a promising, practical, and interpretable direction to enhance cognitive efficiency within advanced reasoning models.

Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to compositional rules - rules consisting of multiple elements which form a complex logical expression. Reasoning about compositional rules is challenging because it requires multiple reasoning steps, and attending to the logical relationships between elements. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition (solving elements as independent threads of logic), and recomposition (recombining these sub-answers to resolve the underlying logical expression). This method was inspired by the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, a sequential reasoning approach used by lawyers. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark and demonstrate it consistently outperforms other prompting methods, including chain of thought and self-ask, using open-source and commercial language models.

Shojaee et al. (2025) report that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit "accuracy collapse" on planning puzzles beyond certain complexity thresholds. We demonstrate that their findings primarily reflect experimental design limitations rather than fundamental reasoning failures. Our analysis reveals three critical issues: (1) Tower of Hanoi experiments systematically exceed model output token limits at reported failure points, with models explicitly acknowledging these constraints in their outputs; (2) The authors' automated evaluation framework fails to distinguish between reasoning failures and practical constraints, leading to misclassification of model capabilities; (3) Most concerningly, their River Crossing benchmarks include mathematically impossible instances for N > 5 due to insufficient boat capacity, yet models are scored as failures for not solving these unsolvable problems. When we control for these experimental artifacts, by requesting generating functions instead of exhaustive move lists, preliminary experiments across multiple models indicate high accuracy on Tower of Hanoi instances previously reported as complete failures. These findings highlight the importance of careful experimental design when evaluating AI reasoning capabilities.

We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as "uncertain evidence." We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We consider a recently-proposed method "distributional evidence" as well as revisit two older methods: Jeffrey's rule and virtual evidence. We devise guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency. To showcase the impact of different interpretations of the same uncertain evidence, we carry out experiments in which one interpretation is defined as "correct." We then compare inference results from each different interpretation illustrating the importance of careful consideration of uncertain evidence.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, ``PhD-level'' knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models, however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models' mistakes are easy to spot. Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models that are on par on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with ``I give up'' before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably ``uncertain'' in its output and in rare cases, it does not ``finish thinking,'' which suggests the need for an inference-time technique to ``wrap up'' before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer with R1 and Gemini Thinking to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.

We present Multi-expert Prompting, a novel enhancement of ExpertPrompting (Xu et al., 2023), designed to improve the large language model (LLM) generation. Specifically, it guides an LLM to fulfill an input instruction by simulating multiple experts, aggregating their responses, and selecting the best among individual and aggregated responses. This process is performed in a single chain of thoughts through our seven carefully designed subtasks derived from the Nominal Group Technique (Ven and Delbecq, 1974), a well-established decision-making framework. Our evaluations demonstrate that Multi-expert Prompting significantly outperforms ExpertPrompting and comparable baselines in enhancing the truthfulness, factuality, informativeness, and usefulness of responses while reducing toxicity and hurtfulness. It further achieves state-of-the-art truthfulness by outperforming the best baseline by 8.69% with ChatGPT. Multi-expert Prompting is efficient, explainable, and highly adaptable to diverse scenarios, eliminating the need for manual prompt construction.

Knowledge-grounded dialogue is a task of generating an informative response based on both the dialogue history and external knowledge source. In general, there are two forms of knowledge: manually annotated knowledge graphs and knowledge text from website. From various evaluation viewpoints, each type of knowledge has advantages and downsides. To further distinguish the principles and determinants from the intricate factors, we conduct a thorough experiment and study on the task to answer three essential questions. The questions involve the choice of appropriate knowledge form, the degree of mutual effects between knowledge and the model selection, and the few-shot performance of knowledge. Supported by statistical shreds of evidence, we offer conclusive solutions and sensible suggestions for directions and standards of future research.

Long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces are widely used as supervision for reasoning-oriented LLM SFT, yet answer-correct traces can still lead to markedly different fine-tuning outcomes. We study post-conclusion continuation in answer-correct long-CoT data: a continuation where the answer appears sufficiently supported, but the trace continues with additional reasoning that remains in the supervised target. To test its training effect, we use a delete-only editor to construct answer-preserving suffix removal and compare CoT-based SFT on the original and processed traces. We observe improved SFT outcomes after removing the editor-identified post-conclusion continuation, suggesting that this continuation is harmful to training in our setting. We therefore refer to this empirically supported phenomenon as harmful continuation. Beyond this intervention, we further characterize the removed post-conclusion continuation through uncertainty and hidden-state progress. We observe persistent local uncertainty together with weakened terminal-directional progress, forming an uncertainty--geometry mismatch. Finally, we instantiate Harmful Continuation Cut (HCC), a lightweight boundary proxy that approximates the editor-identified post-conclusion continuation boundary.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the financial domain has opened new avenues for quantitative trading, particularly through the use of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the challenge of effectively synthesizing insights from diverse data sources and integrating both structured and unstructured data persists. This paper presents TradeExpert, a novel framework that employs a mix of experts (MoE) approach, using four specialized LLMs, each analyzing distinct sources of financial data, including news articles, market data, alpha factors, and fundamental data. The insights of these expert LLMs are further synthesized by a General Expert LLM to make a final prediction or decision. With specific prompts, TradeExpert can be switched between the prediction mode and the ranking mode for stock movement prediction and quantitative stock trading, respectively. In addition to existing benchmarks, we also release a large-scale financial dataset to comprehensively evaluate TradeExpert's effectiveness. Our experimental results demonstrate TradeExpert's superior performance across all trading scenarios.

Without writing a single line of code by a human, an example Monte Carlo simulation based application for stochastic dependence modeling with copulas is developed using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) fine-tuned for conversations. This includes interaction with ChatGPT in natural language and using mathematical formalism, which, under careful supervision by a human-expert, led to producing a working code in MATLAB, Python and R for sampling from a given copula model, evaluation of the model's density, performing maximum likelihood estimation, optimizing the code for parallel computing for CPUs as well as for GPUs, and visualization of the computed results. In contrast to other emerging studies that assess the accuracy of LLMs like ChatGPT on tasks from a selected area, this work rather investigates ways how to achieve a successful solution of a standard statistical task in a collaboration of a human-expert and artificial intelligence (AI). Particularly, through careful prompt engineering, we separate successful solutions generated by ChatGPT from unsuccessful ones, resulting in a comprehensive list of related pros and cons. It is demonstrated that if the typical pitfalls are avoided, we can substantially benefit from collaborating with an AI partner. For example, we show that if ChatGPT is not able to provide a correct solution due to a lack of or incorrect knowledge, the human-expert can feed it with the correct knowledge, e.g., in the form of mathematical theorems and formulas, and make it to apply the gained knowledge in order to provide a solution that is correct. Such ability presents an attractive opportunity to achieve a programmed solution even for users with rather limited knowledge of programming techniques.

Hierarchical reasoning model (HRM) achieves extraordinary performance on various reasoning tasks, significantly outperforming large language model-based reasoners. To understand the strengths and potential failure modes of HRM, we conduct a mechanistic study on its reasoning patterns and find three surprising facts: (a) Failure of extremely simple puzzles, e.g., HRM can fail on a puzzle with only one unknown cell. We attribute this failure to the violation of the fixed point property, a fundamental assumption of HRM. (b) "Grokking" dynamics in reasoning steps, i.e., the answer is not improved uniformly, but instead there is a critical reasoning step that suddenly makes the answer correct; (c) Existence of multiple fixed points. HRM "guesses" the first fixed point, which could be incorrect, and gets trapped there for a while or forever. All facts imply that HRM appears to be "guessing" instead of "reasoning". Leveraging this "guessing" picture, we propose three strategies to scale HRM's guesses: data augmentation (scaling the quality of guesses), input perturbation (scaling the number of guesses by leveraging inference randomness), and model bootstrapping (scaling the number of guesses by leveraging training randomness). On the practical side, by combining all methods, we develop Augmented HRM, boosting accuracy on Sudoku-Extreme from 54.5% to 96.9%. On the scientific side, our analysis provides new insights into how reasoning models "reason".

Large Language Models (LLMs) are highly proficient in language-based tasks. Their language capabilities have positioned them at the forefront of the future AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) race. However, on closer inspection, Valmeekam et al. (2024); Zecevic et al. (2023); Wu et al. (2024) highlight a significant gap between their language proficiency and reasoning abilities. Reasoning in LLMs and Vision Language Models (VLMs) aims to bridge this gap by enabling these models to think and re-evaluate their actions and responses. Reasoning is an essential capability for complex problem-solving and a necessary step toward establishing trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI). This will make AI suitable for deployment in sensitive domains, such as healthcare, banking, law, defense, security etc. In recent times, with the advent of powerful reasoning models like OpenAI O1 and DeepSeek R1, reasoning endowment has become a critical research topic in LLMs. In this paper, we provide a detailed overview and comparison of existing reasoning techniques and present a systematic survey of reasoning-imbued language models. We also study current challenges and present our findings.

We introduce (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. is curated from repeatedly used, authentic university homework and exam problems, together with reference solutions provided by course instructors. presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement. Beyond leaderboard results, we perform a diagnostic analysis by decomposing reference solutions into reasoning flows. We find that although frontier models can often answer intermediate sub-questions correctly, they struggle to reliably derive and maintain correct intermediate states throughout multi-step solutions. We further observe that model-generated solutions typically have more reasoning steps than those provided by the instructor, indicating suboptimal step efficiency and a higher risk of error accumulation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/CFE_Bench.

How do we most effectively treat a disease or condition? Ideally, we could consult a database of evidence gleaned from clinical trials to answer such questions. Unfortunately, no such database exists; clinical trial results are instead disseminated primarily via lengthy natural language articles. Perusing all such articles would be prohibitively time-consuming for healthcare practitioners; they instead tend to depend on manually compiled systematic reviews of medical literature to inform care. NLP may speed this process up, and eventually facilitate immediate consult of published evidence. The Evidence Inference dataset was recently released to facilitate research toward this end. This task entails inferring the comparative performance of two treatments, with respect to a given outcome, from a particular article (describing a clinical trial) and identifying supporting evidence. For instance: Does this article report that chemotherapy performed better than surgery for five-year survival rates of operable cancers? In this paper, we collect additional annotations to expand the Evidence Inference dataset by 25\%, provide stronger baseline models, systematically inspect the errors that these make, and probe dataset quality. We also release an abstract only (as opposed to full-texts) version of the task for rapid model prototyping. The updated corpus, documentation, and code for new baselines and evaluations are available at http://evidence-inference.ebm-nlp.com/.

Large reasoning models (LRMs), such as OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1, demonstrate impressive long-horizon reasoning capabilities. However, their reliance on static internal knowledge limits their performance on complex, knowledge-intensive tasks and hinders their ability to produce comprehensive research reports requiring synthesis of diverse web information. To address this, we propose WebThinker, a deep research agent that empowers LRMs to autonomously search the web, navigate web pages, and draft research reports during the reasoning process. WebThinker integrates a Deep Web Explorer module, enabling LRMs to dynamically search, navigate, and extract information from the web when encountering knowledge gaps. It also employs an Autonomous Think-Search-and-Draft strategy, allowing the model to seamlessly interleave reasoning, information gathering, and report writing in real time. To further enhance research tool utilization, we introduce an RL-based training strategy via iterative online Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Extensive experiments on complex reasoning benchmarks (GPQA, GAIA, WebWalkerQA, HLE) and scientific report generation tasks (Glaive) demonstrate that WebThinker significantly outperforms existing methods and strong proprietary systems. Our approach enhances LRM reliability and applicability in complex scenarios, paving the way for more capable and versatile deep research systems. The code is available at https://github.com/RUC-NLPIR/WebThinker.

The emerging paradigm of AI co-scientists focuses on tasks characterized by repeatable verification, where agents explore search spaces in 'guess and check' loops. This paradigm does not extend to problems where repeated evaluation is impossible and ground truth is established by the consensus synthesis of theory and existing evidence. We evaluate a Gemini-based AI environment designed to support collaborative scientific assessment, integrated into a standard scientific workflow. In collaboration with a diverse group of 13 scientists working in the field of climate science, we tested the system on a complex topic: the stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Our results show that AI can accelerate the scientific workflow. The group produced a comprehensive synthesis of 79 papers through 104 revision cycles in just over 46 person-hours. AI contribution was significant: most AI-generated content was retained in the report. AI also helped maintain logical consistency and presentation quality. However, expert additions were crucial to ensure its acceptability: less than half of the report was produced by AI. Furthermore, substantial oversight was required to expand and elevate the content to rigorous scientific standards.

Post-training has become a primary driver of recent progress in large reasoning models, and reasoning data are often the key variable determining whether this stage succeeds. Work on post-training reasoning data has grown rapidly, yet this literature remains scattered across dataset papers, reinforcement-learning recipes, reward-model studies, benchmarks, and frontier system reports. This paper is the first primer to synthesize over 150 key public studies and system reports on post-training reasoning data. We organize the field around four questions: what data objects exist, what makes them useful, how they are constructed, and how they scale. Together, this organization provides an attribution framework for future reasoning-data releases and post-training recipes.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Analytical reasoning is an essential and challenging task that requires a system to analyze a scenario involving a set of particular circumstances and perform reasoning over it to make conclusions. In this paper, we study the challenge of analytical reasoning of text and introduce a new dataset consisting of questions from the Law School Admission Test from 1991 to 2016. We analyze what knowledge understanding and reasoning abilities are required to do well on this task. Furthermore, to address this reasoning challenge, we design two different baselines: (1) a Transformer-based method which leverages the state-of-the-art pre-trained language models and (2) Analytical Reasoning Machine (ARM), a logical-level reasoning framework extracting symbolic knowledge (e.g, participants, facts, logical functions) to deduce legitimate solutions. In our experiments, we find that the Transformer-based models struggle to solve this task as their performance is close to random guess and ARM achieves better performance by leveraging symbolic knowledge and interpretable reasoning steps. Results show that both methods still lag far behind human performance, which leave further space for future research.

In the rapidly evolving field of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is a critical need to thoroughly analyze their capabilities and risks. Central to our investigation are two novel elements. Firstly, it is the innovative parallels between the statistical patterns of word relationships within LLMs and Martin Heidegger's concepts of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand," which encapsulate the utilitarian and scientific altitudes humans employ in interacting with the world. This comparison lays the groundwork for positioning LLMs as the digital counterpart to the Faculty of Verbal Knowledge, shedding light on their capacity to emulate certain facets of human reasoning. Secondly, a structural analysis of human reasoning, viewed through Heidegger's notion of truth as "unconcealment" is conducted This foundational principle enables us to map out the inputs and outputs of the reasoning system and divide reasoning into four distinct categories. Respective cognitive faculties are delineated, allowing us to place LLMs within the broader schema of human reasoning, thus clarifying their strengths and inherent limitations. Our findings reveal that while LLMs possess the capability for Direct Explicative Reasoning and Pseudo Rational Reasoning, they fall short in authentic rational reasoning and have no creative reasoning capabilities, due to the current lack of many analogous AI models such as the Faculty of Judgement. The potential and risks of LLMs when they are augmented with other AI technologies are also evaluated. The results indicate that although LLMs have achieved proficiency in some reasoning abilities, the aspiration to match or exceed human intellectual capabilities is yet unattained. This research not only enriches our comprehension of LLMs but also propels forward the discourse on AI's potential and its bounds, paving the way for future explorations into AI's evolving landscape.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Reasoning is most powerful when an LLM accurately aggregates relevant information. We examine the critical role of information aggregation in reasoning by requiring the LLM to analyze sports narratives. To succeed at this task, an LLM must infer points from actions, identify related entities, attribute points accurately to players and teams, and compile key statistics to draw conclusions. We conduct comprehensive experiments with real NBA basketball data and present SportsGen, a new method to synthesize game narratives. By synthesizing data, we can rigorously evaluate LLMs' reasoning capabilities under complex scenarios with varying narrative lengths and density of information. Our findings show that most models, including GPT-4o, often fail to accurately aggregate basketball scores due to frequent scoring patterns. Open-source models like Llama-3 further suffer from significant score hallucinations. Finally, the effectiveness of reasoning is influenced by narrative complexity, information density, and domain-specific terms, highlighting the challenges in analytical reasoning tasks.

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Evaluating whether multimodal large language models truly understand long-form scientific papers remains challenging: answer-only metrics and synthetic "Needle-In-A-Haystack" tests often reward answer matching without requiring a causal, evidence-linked reasoning trace in the document. We propose the "Fish-in-the-Ocean" (FITO) paradigm, which requires models to construct explicit cross-modal evidence chains within native scientific documents. To operationalize FITO, we build SIN-Data, a scientific interleaved corpus that preserves the native interleaving of text and figures. On top of it, we construct SIN-Bench with four progressive tasks covering evidence discovery (SIN-Find), hypothesis verification (SIN-Verify), grounded QA (SIN-QA), and evidence-anchored synthesis (SIN-Summary). We further introduce "No Evidence, No Score", scoring predictions when grounded to verifiable anchors and diagnosing evidence quality via matching, relevance, and logic. Experiments on eight MLLMs show that grounding is the primary bottleneck: Gemini-3-pro achieves the best average overall score (0.573), while GPT-5 attains the highest SIN-QA answer accuracy (0.767) but underperforms on evidence-aligned overall scores, exposing a gap between correctness and traceable support.

We introduce LongCat-Flash-Prover, a flagship 560-billion-parameter open-source Mixture-of- Experts (MoE) model that advances Native Formal Reasoning in Lean4 through agentic tool-integrated reasoning (TIR). We decompose the native formal reasoning task into three independent formal capabilities, i.e., auto-formalization, sketching, and proving. To facilitate these capabilities, we propose a Hybrid-Experts Iteration Framework to expand high-quality task trajectories, including generating a formal statement based on a given informal problem, producing a whole-proof directly from the statement, or a lemma-style sketch. During agentic RL, we present a Hierarchical Importance Sampling Policy Optimization (HisPO) algorithm, which aims to stabilize the MoE model training on such long-horizon tasks. It employs a gradient masking strategy that accounts for the policy staleness and the inherent train-inference engine discrepancies at both sequence and token levels. Additionally, we also incorporate theorem consistency and legality detection mechanisms to eliminate reward hacking issues. Extensive evaluations show that our LongCat-Flash-Prover sets a new state-of-the-art for open-weights models in both auto-formalization and theorem proving. Demonstrating remarkable sample efficiency, it achieves a 97.1% pass rate on MiniF2F-Test using only 72 inference budget per problem. On more challenging benchmarks, it solves 70.8% of ProverBench and 41.5% of PutnamBench with no more than 220 attempts per problem, significantly outperforming existing open-weights baselines.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Scientific reasoning, the process through which humans apply logic, evidence, and critical thinking to explore and interpret scientific phenomena, is essential in advancing knowledge reasoning across diverse fields. However, despite significant progress, current scientific reasoning models still struggle with generalization across domains and often fall short of multimodal perception. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which integrate text, images, and other modalities, present an exciting opportunity to overcome these limitations and enhance scientific reasoning. Therefore, this position paper argues that MLLMs can significantly advance scientific reasoning across disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. First, we propose a four-stage research roadmap of scientific reasoning capabilities, and highlight the current state of MLLM applications in scientific reasoning, noting their ability to integrate and reason over diverse data types. Second, we summarize the key challenges that remain obstacles to achieving MLLM's full potential. To address these challenges, we propose actionable insights and suggestions for the future. Overall, our work offers a novel perspective on MLLM integration with scientific reasoning, providing the LLM community with a valuable vision for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly expose chain-of-thought-like reasoning for transparency, verification, and deliberate problem solving. This creates a safety blind spot: harmful or policy-violating content may appear in reasoning traces even when final answers appear safe. We test whether final-answer safety is a sufficient proxy for the full reasoning-answer trajectory by scoring both stages under a unified twenty-principle safety rubric. Using prompts from seven public harmfulness and jailbreak sources, plus four out-of-distribution (OOD) sources, we evaluate 15 open-weight and API-based LRMs across 41K prompts per model. Reasoning traces consistently reveal additional safety risks beyond final answers, especially in high-severity stage-wise failures: leak cases, where unsafe reasoning precedes a safe-looking answer, and escape cases, where benign-looking reasoning precedes an unsafe final response. Principle-level analysis shows that risk concentrates in misinformation, legal compliance, discrimination, physical harm, and psychological harm. We further propose adaptive multi-principle steering, a white-box test-time mitigation that learns one unsafe-to-safe activation direction per safety principle and activates only directions whose current hidden state is closer to the unsafe than safe centroid. On three steerable open reasoning models, adaptive steering reduces unsafe counts in both reasoning traces and final answers on held-out and OOD benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-7B achieves a 40.8% average unsafe-count reduction while retaining 97.7% macro-averaged accuracy on BBH, GSM8K, and MMLU. These results suggest that LRM safety should be evaluated and mitigated over the full exposed reasoning-answer trajectory, not only at the final-answer stage.

Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning abilities in structured tasks (e.g., coding and mathematics), it remains unexplored whether these abilities extend to strategic multi-agent environments. We investigate strategic reasoning capabilities -- the process of choosing an optimal course of action by predicting and adapting to others' actions -- of LLMs by analyzing their performance in three classical games from behavioral economics. We evaluate three standard LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Claude-2.1, Gemini 1.5) and three specialized reasoning LLMs (GPT-o1, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Gemini Flash Thinking 2.0) using hierarchical models of bounded rationality. Our results show that reasoning LLMs exhibit superior strategic reasoning compared to standard LLMs (which do not demonstrate substantial capabilities), and often match or exceed human performance. Since strategic reasoning is fundamental to future AI systems (including Agentic AI and Artificial General Intelligence), our findings demonstrate the importance of dedicated reasoning capabilities in achieving effective strategic reasoning.

Recently, there have been notable advancements in large language models (LLMs), demonstrating their growing abilities in complex reasoning. However, existing research largely overlooks a thorough and systematic comparison of these models' reasoning processes and outputs, particularly regarding their self-reflection pattern (also termed "Aha moment") and the interconnections across diverse domains. This paper proposes a novel framework for analyzing the reasoning characteristics of four cutting-edge large reasoning models (GPT-o1, DeepSeek-R1, Kimi-k1.5, and Grok-3) using keywords statistic and LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. Our approach connects their internal thinking processes with their final outputs. A diverse dataset consists of real-world scenario-based questions covering logical deduction, causal inference, and multi-step problem-solving. Additionally, a set of metrics is put forward to assess both the coherence of reasoning and the accuracy of the outputs. The research results uncover various patterns of how these models balance exploration and exploitation, deal with problems, and reach conclusions during the reasoning process. Through quantitative and qualitative comparisons, disparities among these models are identified in aspects such as the depth of reasoning, the reliance on intermediate steps, and the degree of similarity between their thinking processes and output patterns and those of GPT-o1. This work offers valuable insights into the trade-off between computational efficiency and reasoning robustness and provides practical recommendations for enhancing model design and evaluation in practical applications. We publicly release our project at: https://github.com/ChangWenhan/FromThinking2Output

We automate deep step-by step reasoning in an LLM dialog thread by recursively exploring alternatives (OR-nodes) and expanding details (AND-nodes) up to a given depth. Starting from a single succinct task-specific initiator we steer the automated dialog thread to stay focussed on the task by synthesizing a prompt that summarizes the depth-first steps taken so far. Our algorithm is derived from a simple recursive descent implementation of a Horn Clause interpreter, except that we accommodate our logic engine to fit the natural language reasoning patterns LLMs have been trained on. Semantic similarity to ground-truth facts or oracle advice from another LLM instance is used to restrict the search space and validate the traces of justification steps returned as answers. At the end, the unique minimal model of a generated Horn Clause program collects the results of the reasoning process. As applications, we sketch implementations of consequence predictions, causal explanations, recommendation systems and topic-focussed exploration of scientific literature.

It has been shown that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) may not *say what they think*: they do not always volunteer information about how certain parts of the input influence their reasoning. But it is one thing for a model to *omit* such information and another, worse thing to *lie* about it. Here, we extend the work of Chen et al. (2025) to show that LRMs will do just this: they will flatly deny relying on hints provided in the prompt in answering multiple choice questions -- even when directly asked to reflect on unusual (i.e. hinted) prompt content, even when allowed to use hints, and even though experiments *show* them to be using the hints. Our results thus have discouraging implications for CoT monitoring and interpretability.

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating coherent summaries from very long contexts given a user query. Extracting and properly citing evidence spans could help improve the transparency and reliability of these summaries. At the same time, LLMs suffer from positional biases in terms of which information they understand and attend to, which could affect evidence citation. Whereas previous work has focused on evidence citation with predefined levels of granularity (e.g. sentence, paragraph, document, etc.), we propose the task of long-context query focused summarization with unstructured evidence citation. We show how existing systems struggle to generate and properly cite unstructured evidence from their context, and that evidence tends to be "lost-in-the-middle". To help mitigate this, we create the Summaries with Unstructured Evidence Text dataset (SUnsET), a synthetic dataset generated using a novel domain-agnostic pipeline which can be used as supervision to adapt LLMs to this task. We demonstrate across 5 LLMs of different sizes and 4 datasets with varying document types and lengths that LLMs adapted with SUnsET data generate more relevant and factually consistent evidence than their base models, extract evidence from more diverse locations in their context, and can generate more relevant and consistent summaries.

Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final answer, overlooking the quality and faithfulness of the clinical reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating LLMs on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning. The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements derived from open-access medical case reports. We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning: for instance, the top-performing open-source model, DeepSeek-R1, achieves only 48% 10-shot diagnostic accuracy and mentions only 64% of the clinician reasoning statements (recall). However, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs on the reasoning traces derived from MedCaseReasoning significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning recall by an average relative gain of 29% and 41%, respectively. The open-source dataset, code, and models are available at https://github.com/kevinwu23/Stanford-MedCaseReasoning.

Integrating large language models (LLMs) like DeepSeek R1 into healthcare requires rigorous evaluation of their reasoning alignment with clinical expertise. This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases. The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors. However, error analysis of seven incorrect cases revealed persistent limitations: anchoring bias, challenges reconciling conflicting data, insufficient exploration of alternatives, overthinking, knowledge gaps, and premature prioritization of definitive treatment over intermediate care. Crucially, reasoning length correlated with accuracy - shorter responses (<5,000 characters) were more reliable, suggesting extended explanations may signal uncertainty or rationalization of errors. While DeepSeek R1 exhibits foundational clinical reasoning capabilities, recurring flaws highlight critical areas for refinement, including bias mitigation, knowledge updates, and structured reasoning frameworks. These findings underscore LLMs' potential to augment medical decision-making through artificial reasoning but emphasize the need for domain-specific validation, interpretability safeguards, and confidence metrics (e.g., response length thresholds) to ensure reliability in real-world applications.

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) emphasizes the development of specific competencies through student-centered learning. In this study, we reviewed the importance of OBE and implemented transformer-based models, particularly DistilBERT, to analyze an NLP dataset that includes student feedback. Our objective is to assess and improve educational outcomes. Our approach is better than other machine learning models because it uses the transformer's deep understanding of language context to classify sentiment better, giving better results across a wider range of matrices. Our work directly contributes to OBE's goal of achieving measurable outcomes by facilitating the identification of patterns in student learning experiences. We have also applied LIME (local interpretable model-agnostic explanations) to make sure that model predictions are clear. This gives us understandable information about how key terms affect sentiment. Our findings indicate that the combination of transformer models and LIME explanations results in a strong and straightforward framework for analyzing student feedback. This aligns more closely with the principles of OBE and ensures the improvement of educational practices through data-driven insights.

Scientific problem solving poses unique challenges for LLMs, requiring both deep domain knowledge and the ability to apply such knowledge through complex reasoning. While automated scientific reasoners hold great promise for assisting human scientists, there is currently no widely adopted holistic benchmark for evaluating scientific reasoning, and few approaches systematically disentangle the distinct roles of knowledge and reasoning in these tasks. To address these gaps, we introduce SciReas, a diverse suite of existing benchmarks for scientific reasoning tasks, and SciReas-Pro, a selective subset that requires more complex reasoning. Our holistic evaluation surfaces insights about scientific reasoning performance that remain hidden when relying on individual benchmarks alone. We then propose KRUX, a probing framework for studying the distinct roles of reasoning and knowledge in scientific tasks. Combining the two, we conduct an in-depth analysis that yields several key findings: (1) Retrieving task-relevant knowledge from model parameters is a critical bottleneck for LLMs in scientific reasoning; (2) Reasoning models consistently benefit from external knowledge added in-context on top of the reasoning enhancement; (3) Enhancing verbalized reasoning improves LLMs' ability to surface task-relevant knowledge. Finally, we conduct a lightweight analysis, comparing our science-focused data composition with concurrent efforts on long CoT SFT, and release SciLit01, a strong 8B baseline for scientific reasoning.

Chest X-rays (CXRs) are among the most frequently performed imaging examinations worldwide, yet rising imaging volumes increase radiologist workload and the risk of diagnostic errors. Although artificial intelligence (AI) systems have shown promise for CXR interpretation, most generate only final predictions, without making explicit how visual evidence is translated into radiographic findings and diagnostic predictions. We present CheXOne, a reasoning-enabled vision-language model for CXR interpretation. CheXOne jointly generates diagnostic predictions and explicit, clinically grounded reasoning traces that connect visual evidence, radiographic findings, and these predictions. The model is trained on 14.7 million instruction and reasoning samples curated from 30 public datasets spanning 36 CXR interpretation tasks, using a two-stage framework that combines instruction tuning with reinforcement learning to improve reasoning quality. We evaluate CheXOne in zero-shot settings across visual question answering, report generation, visual grounding and reasoning assessment, covering 17 evaluation settings. CheXOne outperforms existing medical and general-domain foundation models and achieves strong performance on independent public benchmarks. A clinical reader study demonstrates that CheXOne-drafted reports are comparable to or better than resident-written reports in 55% of cases, while effectively addressing clinical indications and enhancing both report writing and CXR interpretation efficiency. Further analyses involving radiologists reveal that the generated reasoning traces show high clinical factuality and provide causal support for the final predictions, offering a plausible explanation for the performance gains. These results suggest that explicit reasoning can improve model performance, interpretability and clinical utility in AI-assisted CXR interpretation.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in multimodal understanding, yet they struggle when reasoning over information-intensive images that densely interleave textual annotations with fine-grained graphical elements. The main challenges lie in precisely localizing critical cues in dense layouts and multi-hop reasoning to integrate dispersed evidence. We propose Speculative Verdict (SV), a training-free framework inspired by speculative decoding that combines multiple lightweight draft experts with a large verdict model. In the draft stage, small VLMs act as draft experts to generate reasoning paths that provide diverse localization candidates; in the verdict stage, a strong VLM synthesizes these paths to produce the final answer, minimizing computational cost while recovering correct answers. To further improve efficiency and accuracy, SV introduces a consensus expert selection mechanism that forwards only high-agreement reasoning paths to the verdict. Empirically, SV achieves consistent gains on challenging information-intensive and high-resolution visual question answering benchmarks, including InfographicVQA, ChartMuseum, ChartQAPro, and HR-Bench 4K. By synthesizing correct insights from multiple partially accurate reasoning paths, SV achieves both error correction and cost-efficiency compared to large proprietary models or training pipelines. Code is available at https://github.com/Tinaliu0123/speculative-verdict

We examine how well the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models used in legal reasoning support abductive reasoning tasks. Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference in which a hypothesis is formulated from a set of observations, and that hypothesis is used to explain the observations. The ability to formulate such hypotheses is important for lawyers and legal scholars as it helps them articulate logical arguments, interpret laws, and develop legal theories. Our motivation is to consider the belief that deep learning models, especially large language models (LLMs), will soon replace lawyers because they perform well on tasks related to legal text processing. But to do so, we believe, requires some form of abductive hypothesis formation. In other words, while LLMs become more popular and powerful, we want to investigate their capacity for abductive reasoning. To pursue this goal, we start by building a logic-augmented dataset for abductive reasoning with 498,697 samples and then use it to evaluate the performance of a SOTA model in the legal field. Our experimental results show that although these models can perform well on tasks related to some aspects of legal text processing, they still fall short in supporting abductive reasoning tasks.

Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with legal professionals to transform a large open-source legal corpus into a dataset supporting two important backbone tasks: information retrieval (IR) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This dataset CLERC (Case Law Evaluation Retrieval Corpus), is constructed for training and evaluating models on their ability to (1) find corresponding citations for a given piece of legal analysis and to (2) compile the text of these citations (as well as previous context) into a cogent analysis that supports a reasoning goal. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on CLERC, showing that current approaches still struggle: GPT-4o generates analyses with the highest ROUGE F-scores but hallucinates the most, while zero-shot IR models only achieve 48.3% recall@1000.

Background. The rapid and growing popularity of machine learning (ML) applications has led to an increasing interest in MLOps, that is, the practice of continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) of ML-enabled systems. Aims. Since changes may affect not only the code but also the ML model parameters and the data themselves, the automation of traditional CI/CD needs to be extended to manage model retraining in production. Method. In this paper, we present an initial investigation of the MLOps practices implemented in a set of ML-enabled systems retrieved from GitHub, focusing on GitHub Actions and CML, two solutions to automate the development workflow. Results. Our preliminary results suggest that the adoption of MLOps workflows in open-source GitHub projects is currently rather limited. Conclusions. Issues are also identified, which can guide future research work.

With the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs), hallucinations, which are non-factual fabrications in model outputs, have become serious concerns. Reasoning capabilities have received attention as a self-verification process to improve output reliability. However, the effect of reasoning within a closed system where LLMs cannot rely on external tools or knowledge has yet to be clarified. We therefore conduct experiments under strict constraints (recommending peer-reviewed journal articles in computer science) to examine the effect of reasoning across multiple models (GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash). Our results reveal a problematic trade-off between constraint compliance and factual accuracy. Non-reasoning models exhibit high constraint violation rates (66-75%) but maintain factual accuracy, while reasoning models reduce violations (13-26%) but systematically distort known facts to satisfy constraints and increase complete fabrication. This trade-off pattern is consistent across both models despite different architectures, indicating a fundamental limitation of reasoning. Furthermore, reasoning does not uniformly improve output authenticity: effects diverge by model, reflecting different allocations of the compliance-truthfulness trade-off. These findings challenge the assumption that reasoning universally improves reliability: reasoning models trade honest constraint violations for detection-resistant distortions.

Researchers have long recognized the socio-technical gaps in personal tracking research, where machines can never fully model the complexity of human behavior, making it only able to produce basic rule-based outputs or "black-box" results that lack clear explanations. Real-world deployments rely on experts for this complex translation from sparse data to meaningful insights. In this study, we consider this translation process from data to insights by experts as "sensemaking" and explore how HCI researchers can support it through Vital Insight, an evidence-based 'sensemaking' system that combines direct representation and indirect inference through visualization and Large Language Models. We evaluate Vital Insight in user testing sessions with 14 experts in multi-modal tracking, synthesize design implications, and develop an expert sensemaking model where they iteratively move between direct data representations and AI-supported inferences to explore, retrieve, question, and validate insights.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis. However, LLM outputs vary significantly depending on the implementation choices made by researchers (e.g., model selection, prompting strategy, or temperature settings). Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I, Type II, Type S, or Type M errors. We call this LLM hacking. We quantify the risk of LLM hacking by replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science research studies with 18 different models. Analyzing 13 million LLM labels, we test 2,361 realistic hypotheses to measure how plausible researcher choices affect statistical conclusions. We find incorrect conclusions based on LLM-annotated data in approximately one in three hypotheses for state-of-the-art models, and in half the hypotheses for small language models. While our findings show that higher task performance and better general model capabilities reduce LLM hacking risk, even highly accurate models do not completely eliminate it. The risk of LLM hacking decreases as effect sizes increase, indicating the need for more rigorous verification of findings near significance thresholds. Our extensive analysis of LLM hacking mitigation techniques emphasizes the importance of human annotations in reducing false positive findings and improving model selection. Surprisingly, common regression estimator correction techniques are largely ineffective in reducing LLM hacking risk, as they heavily trade off Type I vs. Type II errors. Beyond accidental errors, we find that intentional LLM hacking is unacceptably simple. With few LLMs and just a handful of prompt paraphrases, anything can be presented as statistically significant.

Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created BrainBench, a forward-looking benchmark for predicting neuroscience results. We find that LLMs surpass experts in predicting experimental outcomes. BrainGPT, an LLM we tuned on the neuroscience literature, performed better yet. Like human experts, when LLMs were confident in their predictions, they were more likely to be correct, which presages a future where humans and LLMs team together to make discoveries. Our approach is not neuroscience-specific and is transferable to other knowledge-intensive endeavors.

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

Recent advances in mixture-of-experts architectures have shown that individual experts models can be trained federatedly, i.e., in isolation from other experts by using a common base model to facilitate coordination. However, we hypothesize that full-sized experts may not be necessary for all domains and that instead low-rank adapters may be sufficient. Here, we introduce FlexMoRE, a Flexible Mixture of Rank-heterogenous Experts, which may be either full-sized experts or adapters of a suitable rank. We systematically investigate the trade-off between expert rank and downstream task performance by evaluating 6 experts with ranks 2^0 to 2^{14} resulting in experiments covering 150 mixtures (96 with 2 experts, 54 with 7 experts) that are evaluated across 120 tasks. For our experiments, we build on FlexOlmo and turn its pre-trained experts into low-rank versions. Our regression analysis from expert rank to downstream task performance reveals that the best-performing rank is substantially higher for reasoning-heavy benchmarks than for knowledge-heavy benchmarks. These findings on rank sensitivity come with direct implications for memory efficiency: Using optimal ranks, FlexMoRE yields improved downstream task performance (average score 47.18) compared to the baseline FlexOlmo-style mixture of full-sized experts (average score 45.46) at less than one third the parameters (10.75B for FlexMoRE vs. 33.27B for FlexOlmo). All code will be made available.

Scientific discovery workflows usually contain and rely heavily on lab notes, where researchers record observations, interpret uncertain results, and plan follow-up experiments. Such informative lab notes preserve evolving scientific reasoning and author uncertainty, rather than polished final results exhibited in publications, providing a valuable opportunity for AI to engage in scientific exploration at a more comprehensive and deeper level. However, most prior work on scientific text focuses on papers, protocols, or structured databases, leaving informal laboratory notes underexplored as inputs to AI agents for science. This gap matters because lab notes often intermingle validated observations, tentative judgments, and possible experimental next steps within the same passage. If these signals are conflated, an AI agent may mistake uncertain scientific judgments for confirmed conclusions or executable actions. To this end, we present Notes2Skills, a two-stage framework for turning lab notebooks into verifiable skills for scientific AI agents while preserving the author's certainty. Across seven conditions and three wet-lab sessions, Notes2Skills is the only configuration that neither mistakes uncertain notes for firm instructions nor discards firm ones. We show that certainty preservation is the missing piece between lab notebooks and reliable agent skills, opening a path toward safer AI co-scientist systems.

Domain expertise enhances judgment within boundaries but creates systematic vulnerabilities specifically at borders. We term this Transitive Expert Error (TEE), distinct from Dunning-Kruger effects, requiring calibrated expertise as precondition. Mechanisms enabling reliable within-domain judgment become liabilities when structural similarity masks causal divergence. Two core mechanisms operate: structural similarity bias causes experts to overweight surface features (shared vocabulary, patterns, formal structure) while missing causal architecture differences; authority persistence maintains confidence across competence boundaries through social reinforcement and metacognitive failures (experts experience no subjective uncertainty as pattern recognition operates smoothly on familiar-seeming inputs.) These mechanism intensify under three conditions: shared vocabulary masking divergent processes, social pressure for immediate judgment, and delayed feedback. These findings extend to AI routing architectures (MoE systems, multi-model orchestration, tool-using agents, RAG systems) exhibiting routing-induced failures (wrong specialist selected) and coverage-induced failures (no appropriate specialist exists). Both produce a hallucination phenotype: confident, coherent, structurally plausible but causally incorrect outputs at domain boundaries. In human systems where mechanisms are cognitive black boxes; AI architectures make them explicit and addressable. We propose interventions: multi-expert activation with disagreement detection (router level), boundary-aware calibration (specialist level), and coverage gap detection (training level). TEE has detectable signatures (routing patterns, confidence-accuracy dissociations, domain-inappropriate content) enabling monitoring and mitigation. What remains intractable in human cognition becomes addressable through architectural design.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning abilities through test-time computation (TTC) techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting and tree-based reasoning. However, we argue that current reasoning LLMs (RLLMs) lack the ability to systematically explore the solution space. This paper formalizes what constitutes systematic problem solving and identifies common failure modes that reveal reasoning LLMs to be wanderers rather than systematic explorers. Through qualitative and quantitative analysis across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs, we uncover persistent issues: invalid reasoning steps, redundant explorations, hallucinated or unfaithful conclusions, and so on. Our findings suggest that current models' performance can appear to be competent on simple tasks yet degrade sharply as complexity increases. Based on the findings, we advocate for new metrics and tools that evaluate not just final outputs but the structure of the reasoning process itself.

Recent advancements in reasoning-enhanced large language models (LLMs), such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o3, have demonstrated significant progress. However, their application in professional medical contexts remains underexplored, particularly in evaluating the quality of their reasoning processes alongside final outputs. Here, we introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references derived from clinical case reports. Spanning 13 body systems and 10 specialties, it includes both common and rare diseases. To comprehensively evaluate LLM performance, we propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey. To assess reasoning quality, we present the Reasoning Evaluator, a novel automated system that objectively scores free-text reasoning responses based on efficiency, actuality, and completeness using dynamic cross-referencing and evidence checks. Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc. Our results show that current LLMs achieve over 85% accuracy in relatively simple diagnostic tasks when provided with sufficient examination results. However, performance declines in more complex tasks, such as examination recommendation and treatment planning. While reasoning outputs are generally reliable, with factuality scores exceeding 90%, critical reasoning steps are frequently missed. These findings underscore both the progress and limitations of clinical LLMs. Notably, open-source models like DeepSeek-R1 are narrowing the gap with proprietary systems, highlighting their potential to drive accessible and equitable advancements in healthcare.

AI agents can increasingly handle the mechanical tasks of financial analysis: retrieving documents, calculating formulas, updating spreadsheets. The harder, more valuable challenge is reasoning through the open-ended questions that define expert Analyst work. Existing benchmarks do not capture this class of problem, and those that attempt to evaluate open-ended reasoning rely on model-judged outputs that introduce noise and circularity. We present Hedge-Bench 1.0: a benchmark of 102 actual, on-the-job tasks grounded in the explicit reasoning traces of professional hedge fund analysts working with relevant information sources. This approach enables deterministic grading against verified expert steps. Frontier models and agents score below 16\% on the benchmark. We publish the dataset and evaluation harness at github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench.

When experiencing an information need, users want to engage with a domain expert, but often turn to an information retrieval system, such as a search engine, instead. Classical information retrieval systems do not answer information needs directly, but instead provide references to (hopefully authoritative) answers. Successful question answering systems offer a limited corpus created on-demand by human experts, which is neither timely nor scalable. Pre-trained language models, by contrast, are capable of directly generating prose that may be responsive to an information need, but at present they are dilettantes rather than domain experts -- they do not have a true understanding of the world, they are prone to hallucinating, and crucially they are incapable of justifying their utterances by referring to supporting documents in the corpus they were trained over. This paper examines how ideas from classical information retrieval and pre-trained language models can be synthesized and evolved into systems that truly deliver on the promise of domain expert advice.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

We report new results on eight problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, produced with the assistance of Bolzano, an open-source multi-agent LLM system. Bolzano orchestrates rounds of interaction between parallel prover agents and a verifier agent while maintaining a persistent knowledge base that is carried across rounds. Classified using the significance-autonomy taxonomy of Feng et al., six of the eight results reach the level of publishable research, and five of the eight were produced essentially autonomously by Bolzano. Our results provide evidence that LLMs can contribute meaningfully to mathematical research, complementing recent reports by Bubeck et al., Woodruff et al., and others.

Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable strides in various natural language processing tasks, but their performance on complex reasoning problems remains hindered by a lack of explainability and trustworthiness. This issue, often manifesting as hallucinations or unattributable reasoning processes, limits their applicability in complex reasoning scenarios. To address this, we propose Knowledge Graph-constrained Trajectory Reasoning Attribution and Chain Explanation Supervision (KG-TRACES), a novel framework that enhances the reasoning ability of LLMs through explicit supervision over reasoning paths and processes. KG-TRACES jointly supervises the model to: (1) predict symbolic relation paths, (2) predict full triple-level reasoning paths, and (3) generate attribution-aware reasoning processes grounded in the reasoning paths. At inference phase, the model adapts to both KG-available and KG-unavailable scenarios, retrieving reasoning paths from a KG when possible or predicting plausible reasoning paths with only intrinsic knowledge when not. This design enables the model to reason in an explainable and source-attributable pattern. Through extensive experiments on complex reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that KG-TRACES significantly outperforms existing SOTA: it improves Hits@1 by 1.6% and F1 by 4.7% on WebQSP, and achieves improvements of 4.8% in Hits@1 and 2.1% in F1 on CWQ. Moreover, we show its transferability to specialized domains such as medicine. By visualizing the intermediate steps of reasoning processes, we further show that the explicit supervision introduced by KG-TRACES leads to more stable and goal-directed reasoning processes, aligning closely with correct answers. Code is available at https://github.com/Edaizi/KG-TRACES.

Recently, slow-thinking reasoning systems, such as o1, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex reasoning tasks. These systems typically engage in an extended thinking process before responding to a query, allowing them to generate more thorough, accurate, and well-reasoned solutions. These systems are primarily developed and maintained by industry, with their core techniques not publicly disclosed. In response, an increasing number of studies from the research community aim to explore the technical foundations underlying these powerful reasoning systems. Building on these prior efforts, this paper presents a reproduction report on implementing o1-like reasoning systems. We introduce an "imitate, explore, and self-improve" framework as our primary technical approach to train the reasoning model. In the initial phase, we use distilled long-form thought data to fine-tune the reasoning model, enabling it to invoke a slow-thinking mode. The model is then encouraged to explore challenging problems by generating multiple rollouts, which can result in increasingly more high-quality trajectories that lead to correct answers. Furthermore, the model undergoes self-improvement by iteratively refining its training dataset. To verify the effectiveness of this approach, we conduct extensive experiments on three challenging benchmarks. The experimental results demonstrate that our approach achieves competitive performance compared to industry-level reasoning systems on these benchmarks.

Several recent works seek to develop foundation models specifically for medical applications, adapting general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) via continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora. These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining (DAPT) improves performance on downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical licensing exam questions. In this paper, we compare ten public "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting and supervised fine-tuning regimes for medical question-answering (QA). For instance, across all tasks and model pairs we consider in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs only outperform their base models in 22.7% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 36.8% of cases, and are significantly worse than their base models in the remaining 40.5% of cases. Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model head-to-head, directly against the corresponding base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately in zero-/few-shot prompting; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons. While these basic practices are not consistently adopted in the literature, our ablations show that they substantially impact conclusions. Meanwhile, we find that after fine-tuning on specific QA tasks, medical LLMs can show performance improvements, but the benefits do not carry over to tasks based on clinical notes. Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art general-domain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 156 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solutions, FrontierCS targets problems where the optimal solution is unknown, but the quality of a solution can be objectively evaluated. Models solve these tasks by implementing executable programs rather than outputting a direct answer. FrontierCS includes algorithmic problems, which are often NP-hard variants of competitive programming problems with objective partial scoring, and research problems with the same property. For each problem we provide an expert reference solution and an automatic evaluator. Combining open-ended design, measurable progress, and expert curation, FrontierCS provides a benchmark at the frontier of computer-science difficulty. Empirically, we find that frontier reasoning models still lag far behind human experts on both the algorithmic and research tracks, that increasing reasoning budgets alone does not close this gap, and that models often over-optimize for generating merely workable code instead of discovering high-quality algorithms and system designs.

LLM agents excel when environments are mostly static and the needed information fits in a model's context window, but they often fail in open-ended investigations where explanations must be constructed by iteratively mining evidence from massive, heterogeneous operational data. These investigations exhibit hidden dependency structure: entities interact, signals co-vary, and the importance of a fact may only become clear after other evidence is discovered. Because the context window is bounded, agents must summarize intermediate findings before their significance is known, increasing the risk of discarding key evidence. ReAct-style agents are especially brittle in this regime. Their retrieve-summarize-reason loop makes conclusions sensitive to exploration order and introduces run-to-run non-determinism, producing a reliability gap where Pass-at-k may be high but Majority-at-k remains low. Simply sampling more rollouts or generating longer reasoning traces does not reliably stabilize results, since hypotheses cannot be autonomously checked as new evidence arrives and there is no explicit mechanism for belief bookkeeping and revision. In addition, ReAct entangles semantic reasoning with controller duties such as tool orchestration and state tracking, so execution errors and plan drift degrade reasoning while consuming scarce context. We address these issues by formulating investigation as abductive reasoning over a dependency graph and proposing EoG (Explanations over Graphs), a disaggregated framework in which an LLM performs bounded local evidence mining and labeling (cause vs symptom) while a deterministic controller manages traversal, state, and belief propagation to compute a minimal explanatory frontier. On a representative ITBench diagnostics task, EoG improves both accuracy and run-to-run consistency over ReAct baselines, including a 7x average gain in Majority-at-k entity F1.

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with maintaining accuracy across a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps in mathematical reasoning, leading to error propagation that undermines the final result. The current methodology to mitigate this issue primarily involves using a verifier model to assess the correctness of generated solution candidates, focusing either on the overall reasoning path or on an incomplete reasoning path. By rethinking this approach, we argue that assessing potentials of incomplete reasoning paths could be more advantageous as it guides towards correct final answers, transforming the task into a planning problem. Our proposed verifier, the Outcome-supervision Value Model (OVM), employs outcome supervision for training, offering an efficient and intuitive method for planning by prioritizing steps that lead to accurate conclusions over mere per-step correctness. Furthermore, the OVM eschews the need for labor-intensive annotations on step-level correctness, enhancing its scalability. Our experiments on two multi-step mathematical reasoning datasets, GSM8K and Game of 24, demonstrate the superior performance of the OVM model. Notably, in GSM8K, our OVM-7B model achieves state-of-the-art results among LLMs up to 13B parameters; especially it does not utilize GPT-4 or code execution. These findings offer a novel perspective on the role of outcome supervision in training verifiers for multi-step reasoning tasks and provide theoretical justification for its advantage in value estimation for planning.

Traditional language model-based theorem proving assumes that by training on a sufficient amount of formal proof data, a model will learn to prove theorems. Our key observation is that a wealth of informal information that is not present in formal proofs can be useful for learning to prove theorems. For instance, humans think through steps of a proof, but this thought process is not visible in the resulting code. We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof, thereby boosting the model's theorem-proving capabilities. Lean-STaR uses retrospective ground-truth tactics to generate synthetic thoughts for training the language model. At inference time, the trained model directly generates the thoughts prior to the prediction of the tactics in each proof step. Building on the self-taught reasoner framework, we then apply expert iteration to further fine-tune the model on the correct proofs it samples and verifies using the Lean solver. Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment, significantly outperforming base models (43.4% rightarrow 46.3%, Pass@64). We also analyze the impact of the augmented thoughts on various aspects of the theorem proving process, providing insights into their effectiveness.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently achieved significant progress in complex reasoning tasks, aided by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. However, LRMs often suffer from overthinking, expending excessive computation on simple problems and reducing efficiency. Existing efficient reasoning methods typically require accurate task assessment to preset token budgets or select reasoning modes, which limits their flexibility and reliability. In this work, we revisit the essence of overthinking and identify that encouraging effective steps while penalizing ineffective ones is key to its solution. To this end, we propose a novel rule-based verifiable stepwise reward mechanism (VSRM), which assigns rewards based on the performance of intermediate states in the reasoning trajectory. This approach is intuitive and naturally fits the step-by-step nature of reasoning tasks. We conduct extensive experiments on standard mathematical reasoning benchmarks, including AIME24 and AIME25, by integrating VSRM with PPO and Reinforce++. Results show that our method achieves substantial output length reduction while maintaining original reasoning performance, striking an optimal balance between efficiency and accuracy. Further analysis of overthinking frequency and pass@k score before and after training demonstrates that our approach in deed effectively suppresses ineffective steps and encourages effective reasoning, fundamentally alleviating the overthinking problem. All code will be released upon acceptance.

Large Language Models deployed as question answering tools require robust calibration to avoid overconfidence. We systematically evaluate how reasoning capabilities and budget affect confidence assessment accuracy, using the ClimateX dataset (Lacombe et al., 2023) and expanding it to human and planetary health. Our key finding challenges the "test-time scaling" paradigm: while recent reasoning LLMs achieve 48.7% accuracy in assessing expert confidence, increasing reasoning budgets consistently impairs rather than improves calibration. Extended reasoning leads to systematic overconfidence that worsens with longer thinking budgets, producing diminishing and negative returns beyond modest computational investments. Conversely, search-augmented generation dramatically outperforms pure reasoning, achieving 89.3% accuracy by retrieving relevant evidence. Our results suggest that information access, rather than reasoning depth or inference budget, may be the critical bottleneck for improved confidence calibration of knowledge-intensive tasks.

We introduce Vibe Reasoning, a human-AI collaborative paradigm for solving complex mathematical problems. Our key insight is that frontier AI models already possess the knowledge required to solve challenging problems -- they simply do not know how, what, or when to apply it. Vibe Reasoning transforms AI's latent potential into manifested capability through generic meta-prompts, agentic grounding, and model orchestration. We demonstrate this paradigm through IMO 2025 Problem 6, a combinatorial optimization problem where autonomous AI systems publicly reported failures. Our solution combined GPT-5's exploratory capabilities with Gemini 3 Pro's proof strengths, leveraging agentic workflows with Python code execution and file-based memory, to derive both the correct answer (2112) and a rigorous mathematical proof. Through iterative refinement across multiple attempts, we discovered the necessity of agentic grounding and model orchestration, while human prompts evolved from problem-specific hints to generic, transferable meta-prompts. We analyze why capable AI fails autonomously, how each component addresses specific failure modes, and extract principles for effective vibe reasoning. Our findings suggest that lightweight human guidance can unlock frontier models' mathematical reasoning potential. This is ongoing work; we are developing automated frameworks and conducting broader evaluations to further validate Vibe Reasoning's generality and effectiveness.

While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in diagnostic dialogue, their capabilities for effective management reasoning - including disease progression, therapeutic response, and safe medication prescription - remain under-explored. We advance the previously demonstrated diagnostic capabilities of the Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE) through a new LLM-based agentic system optimised for clinical management and dialogue, incorporating reasoning over the evolution of disease and multiple patient visit encounters, response to therapy, and professional competence in medication prescription. To ground its reasoning in authoritative clinical knowledge, AMIE leverages Gemini's long-context capabilities, combining in-context retrieval with structured reasoning to align its output with relevant and up-to-date clinical practice guidelines and drug formularies. In a randomized, blinded virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) study, AMIE was compared to 21 primary care physicians (PCPs) across 100 multi-visit case scenarios designed to reflect UK NICE Guidance and BMJ Best Practice guidelines. AMIE was non-inferior to PCPs in management reasoning as assessed by specialist physicians and scored better in both preciseness of treatments and investigations, and in its alignment with and grounding of management plans in clinical guidelines. To benchmark medication reasoning, we developed RxQA, a multiple-choice question benchmark derived from two national drug formularies (US, UK) and validated by board-certified pharmacists. While AMIE and PCPs both benefited from the ability to access external drug information, AMIE outperformed PCPs on higher difficulty questions. While further research would be needed before real-world translation, AMIE's strong performance across evaluations marks a significant step towards conversational AI as a tool in disease management.

Advances in training, post-training, and inference-time methods have enabled frontier reasoning models to win gold medals in math competitions and settle challenging open problems. Gaining trust in the responses of these models requires that natural language proofs be checked for errors. LLM judges are increasingly being adopted to meet the growing demand for evaluating such proofs. While verification is considered easier than generation, what model capability does reliable verification actually require? We systematically evaluate four open-source and two frontier LLMs on datasets of human-graded natural language proofs of competition-level problems. We consider two key metrics: verifier accuracy and self-consistency (the rate of agreement across repeated judgments on the same proof). We observe that smaller open-source models are only up to ~10% behind frontier models in accuracy but they are up to ~25% more inconsistent. Furthermore, we see that verifier accuracy is sensitive to prompt choice across all models. We then demonstrate that the smaller models, in fact, do possess the mathematical capabilities to verify proofs at the level of frontier models, but they struggle to reliably elicit these capabilities with general judging prompts. Through an LLM-guided prompt search, we synthesize an ensemble of specialized prompts that overcome the specific failure modes of smaller models, boosting their performance by up to 9.1% in accuracy and 15.9% in self-consistency. These gains are realized across models and datasets, allowing models like Qwen3.5-35B to perform on par with frontier models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro for proof verification.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks by leveraging increased test-time computation and exhibiting behaviors reminiscent of human-like self-reflection. While LRMs show a clear capacity for valuable self-reflection, how this ability interacts with other model behaviors remains underexplored. We investigate this connection by analyzing verbalized confidence, how models articulate their certainty, as a lens into the nature of self-reflection in LRMs. We find that supervised fine-tuning on reasoning traces (i.e., distillation) and reinforcement learning can improve verbalized calibration in reasoning-intensive settings in a progressive, laddered fashion. However, our results also indicate that reasoning models may possess a diminished awareness of their own knowledge boundaries, as evidenced by significantly lower "I don't know" response rates on factuality benchmarks. Moreover, we examine the relationship between verbalized confidence and reasoning chains, finding that models tend to express higher confidence when providing shorter or less elaborate reasoning. Our findings highlight how reasoning-oriented training can enhance performance in reasoning-centric tasks while potentially incurring a "reasoning tax," a cost reflected in the model's reduced ability to accurately recognize the limits of its own knowledge in small-scale models. More broadly, our work showcases how this erosion of knowledge boundaries can compromise model faithfulness, as models grow more confident without a commensurate understanding of when they should abstain.

Following the recent achievement of gold-medal performance on the IMO by frontier LLMs, the community is searching for the next meaningful and challenging target for measuring LLM reasoning. Whereas olympiad-style problems measure step-by-step reasoning alone, research-level problems use such reasoning to advance the frontier of mathematical knowledge itself, emerging as a compelling alternative. Yet research-level math benchmarks remain scarce because such problems are difficult to source (e.g., Riemann Bench and FrontierMath-Tier 4 contain 25 and 50 problems, respectively). To support reliable evaluation of next-generation frontier models, we introduce Soohak, a 439-problem benchmark newly authored from scratch by 64 mathematicians. Soohak comprises two subsets. On the Challenge subset, frontier models including Gemini-3-Pro, GPT-5, and Claude-Opus-4.5 reach 30.4%, 26.4%, and 10.4% respectively, leaving substantial headroom, while leading open-weight models such as Qwen3-235B, GPT-OSS-120B, and Kimi-2.5 remain below 15%. Notably, beyond standard problem solving, Soohak introduces a refusal subset that probes a capability intrinsic to research mathematics: recognizing ill-posed problems and pausing rather than producing confident but unjustified answers. On this subset, no model exceeds 50%, identifying refusal as a new optimization target that current models do not directly address. To prevent contamination, the dataset will be publicly released in late 2026, with model evaluations available upon request in the interim.

Improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) typically relies either on the model's ability to sample a correct solution to be reinforced or on the existence of a stronger model able to solve the problem. However, many difficult problems remain intractable for even current frontier models, preventing the extraction of valid training signals. A promising alternative is to leverage high-quality expert human solutions, yet naive imitation of this data fails because it is fundamentally out of distribution: expert solutions are typically didactic, containing implicit reasoning gaps intended for human readers rather than computational models. Furthermore, high-quality expert solutions are expensive, necessitating generalizable sample-efficient training methods. We propose Distribution Aligned Imitation Learning (DAIL), a two-step method that bridges the distributional gap by first transforming expert solutions into detailed, in-distribution reasoning traces and then applying a contrastive objective to focus learning on expert insights and methodologies. We find that DAIL can leverage fewer than 1000 high-quality expert solutions to achieve 10-25% pass@k gains on Qwen2.5-Instruct and Qwen3 models, improve reasoning efficiency by 2x to 4x, and enable out-of-domain generalization.

Achieving human-level intelligence requires refining the transition from the fast, intuitive System 1 to the slower, more deliberate System 2 reasoning. While System 1 excels in quick, heuristic decisions, System 2 relies on logical reasoning for more accurate judgments and reduced biases. Foundational Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at fast decision-making but lack the depth for complex reasoning, as they have not yet fully embraced the step-by-step analysis characteristic of true System 2 thinking. Recently, reasoning LLMs like OpenAI's o1/o3 and DeepSeek's R1 have demonstrated expert-level performance in fields such as mathematics and coding, closely mimicking the deliberate reasoning of System 2 and showcasing human-like cognitive abilities. This survey begins with a brief overview of the progress in foundational LLMs and the early development of System 2 technologies, exploring how their combination has paved the way for reasoning LLMs. Next, we discuss how to construct reasoning LLMs, analyzing their features, the core methods enabling advanced reasoning, and the evolution of various reasoning LLMs. Additionally, we provide an overview of reasoning benchmarks, offering an in-depth comparison of the performance of representative reasoning LLMs. Finally, we explore promising directions for advancing reasoning LLMs and maintain a real-time https://github.com/zzli2022/Awesome-Slow-Reason-System{GitHub Repository} to track the latest developments. We hope this survey will serve as a valuable resource to inspire innovation and drive progress in this rapidly evolving field.

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

With the growing success of reasoning models across complex natural language tasks, researchers in the Information Retrieval (IR) community have begun exploring how similar reasoning capabilities can be integrated into passage rerankers built on Large Language Models (LLMs). These methods typically employ an LLM to produce an explicit, step-by-step reasoning process before arriving at a final relevance prediction. But, does reasoning actually improve reranking accuracy? In this paper, we dive deeper into this question, studying the impact of the reasoning process by comparing reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions, and observe that StandardRR generally outperforms ReasonRR. Building on this observation, we then study the importance of reasoning to ReasonRR by disabling its reasoning process (ReasonRR-NoReason), and find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR. Examining the cause of this result, our findings reveal that reasoning-based rerankers are limited by the LLM's reasoning process, which pushes it toward polarized relevance scores and thus fails to consider the partial relevance of passages, a key factor for the accuracy of pointwise rerankers.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) on chain-of-thought reasoning has become a standard part of language model post-training recipes. A common assumption is that the reasoning chains trained through RLVR reliably represent how a model gets to its answer. In this paper, we develop two metrics for critically examining this assumption: Causal Importance of Reasoning (CIR), which measures the cumulative effect of reasoning tokens on the final answer, and Sufficiency of Reasoning (SR), which measures whether a verifier can arrive at an unambiguous answer based on the reasoning alone. Through experiments with the Qwen2.5 model series and ReasoningGym tasks, we find that: (1) while RLVR does improve task accuracy, it does not reliably improve CIR or SR, calling the role of reasoning in model performance into question; (2) a small amount of SFT before RLVR can be a remedy for low CIR and SR; and (3) CIR and SR can be improved even without SFT by applying auxiliary CIR/SR rewards on top of the outcome-based reward. This joint reward matches the accuracy of RLVR while also leading to causally important and sufficient reasoning. These results show that RLVR does not always lead models to rely on reasoning in the way that is commonly thought, but this issue can be remedied with simple modifications to the post-training procedure.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have significantly enhanced their capabilities in complex problem-solving by introducing a thinking draft that enables multi-path Chain-of-Thought explorations before producing final answers. Ensuring the faithfulness of these intermediate reasoning processes is crucial for reliable monitoring, interpretation, and effective control. In this paper, we propose a systematic counterfactual intervention framework to rigorously evaluate thinking draft faithfulness. Our approach focuses on two complementary dimensions: (1) Intra-Draft Faithfulness, which assesses whether individual reasoning steps causally influence subsequent steps and the final draft conclusion through counterfactual step insertions; and (2) Draft-to-Answer Faithfulness, which evaluates whether final answers are logically consistent with and dependent on the thinking draft, by perturbing the draft's concluding logic. We conduct extensive experiments across six state-of-the-art LRMs. Our findings show that current LRMs demonstrate selective faithfulness to intermediate reasoning steps and frequently fail to faithfully align with the draft conclusions. These results underscore the need for more faithful and interpretable reasoning in advanced LRMs.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in Deep Research or Wide Search, their capacity to solve highly complex questions-those requiring long-horizon planning, massive evidence gathering, and synthesis across heterogeneous sources-remains largely unexplored. We introduce Super Research, a task for complex autonomous research tasks that integrates (i) structured decomposition into a research plan, (ii) super wide retrieval for diverse perspectives, and (iii) super deep investigation to resolve uncertainties through iterative queries. To evaluate this capability, we curated a benchmark of 300 expert-written questions across diverse domains, each requiring up to 100+ retrieval steps and 1,000+ web pages to reconcile conflicting evidence. Super Research produces verifiable reports with fine-grained citations and intermediate artifacts (e.g., outlines and tables) to ensure traceable reasoning. Furthermore, we present a graph-anchored auditing protocol that evaluates Super Research along five dimensions: Coverage, Logical Consistency, Report Utility, Objectivity and Citation Health. While super-complex questions may be infrequent in standard applications, Super Research serves as a critical ceiling evaluation and stress test for LLM capabilities. A model's proficiency within Super Research acts as a powerful proxy for its general research competence; success here suggests the robustness necessary to navigate nearly any subordinate research task. Leaderboard is available at: https://cnsdqd-dyb.github.io/Super-Research-Benchmark/

Recent advances in synergizing large reasoning models (LRMs) with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have shown promising results, yet two critical challenges remain: (1) reasoning models typically operate from a single, unchallenged perspective, limiting their ability to conduct deep, self-correcting reasoning over external documents, and (2) existing training paradigms rely excessively on outcome-oriented rewards, which provide insufficient signal for shaping the complex, multi-step reasoning process. To address these issues, we propose an Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adversarial Reasoning RAG (ARR). The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage that requires no external scoring model. This reward combines explicit observational signals with internal model uncertainty to jointly optimize reasoning fidelity and verification rigor. Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Reasoning has become a central paradigm for large language models (LLMs), consistently boosting accuracy across diverse benchmarks. Yet its suitability for precision-sensitive tasks remains unclear. We present the first systematic study of reasoning for classification tasks under strict low false positive rate (FPR) regimes. Our analysis covers two tasks--safety detection and hallucination detection--evaluated in both fine-tuned and zero-shot settings, using standard LLMs and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). Our results reveal a clear trade-off: Think On (reasoning-augmented) generation improves overall accuracy, but underperforms at the low-FPR thresholds essential for practical use. In contrast, Think Off (no reasoning during inference) dominates in these precision-sensitive regimes, with Think On surpassing only when higher FPRs are acceptable. In addition, we find token-based scoring substantially outperforms self-verbalized confidence for precision-sensitive deployments. Finally, a simple ensemble of the two modes recovers the strengths of each. Taken together, our findings position reasoning as a double-edged tool: beneficial for average accuracy, but often ill-suited for applications requiring strict precision.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident yet incorrect answers, which can lead to risky failures in real-world applications. We study whether post-training can make a model's self-assessment explicit: when the model is uncertain, can it be trained to signal so within its own response? A central design question is where in the response this signal should be exposed -- during reasoning, while the answer is still being formed, or at the end, once the answer has been produced. We study both. For end-of-reasoning self-assessment, we train the model to verbalize a confidence score for its response, with the aim of high confidence on correct answers and low confidence on incorrect ones. For during-reasoning self-assessment, we train the model to emit the marker <uncertain> whenever its current reasoning state appears unreliable. Across factual reasoning tasks, both forms sharply reduce overconfident errors while improving answer quality, and both can be used as triggers for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) to improve the final response. We further analyze their internal mechanisms: end-of-reasoning verbalized confidence sharpens a confidence-related structure already present in the pretrained model, whereas during-reasoning <uncertain> emission teaches the model to mark high-risk reasoning steps, with parameter changes concentrated in the model's late layers.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown impressive capabilities in mathematical and logical reasoning. However, current LRMs rarely admit ignorance or respond with "I don't know". Instead, they often produce incorrect answers while showing undue confidence, raising concerns about their factual reliability. In this work, we identify two pathological reasoning patterns characterized by overthinking that contribute to the overconfident and incorrect answers: last-minute guessing and second-thought spiraling. To address these issues, we propose BARREL-a novel framework that promotes concise and boundary-aware factual reasoning. Our experiments show that BARREL-training increases the reliability of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B from 39.33% to 61.48%, while still achieving accuracy comparable to models finetuned on reasoning data generated by R1. These results demonstrate that our pilot study is inspiring to build more reliable and factual System 2 LRMs.

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI.

Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising pre-screening tool, improving early disease detection and providing enhanced healthcare access for underprivileged communities. The early diagnosis of various diseases continues to be a significant challenge in healthcare, primarily due to the nonspecific nature of early symptoms, the shortage of expert medical practitioners, and the need for prolonged clinical evaluations, all of which can delay treatment and adversely affect patient outcomes. With impressive accuracy in prediction across a range of diseases, LLMs have the potential to revolutionize clinical pre-screening and decision-making for various medical conditions. In this work, we study the diagnostic capability of LLMs for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) with real world patients data. Patient data was collected alongside diagnoses from medical experts, and the performance of LLMs was evaluated in comparison to expert diagnoses for RA disease prediction. We notice an interesting pattern in disease diagnosis and find an unexpected misalignment between prediction and explanation. We conduct a series of multi-round analyses using different LLM agents. The best-performing model accurately predicts rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diseases approximately 95\% of the time. However, when medical experts evaluated the reasoning generated by the model, they found that nearly 68\% of the reasoning was incorrect. This study highlights a clear misalignment between LLMs high prediction accuracy and its flawed reasoning, raising important questions about relying on LLM explanations in clinical settings. LLMs provide incorrect reasoning to arrive at the correct answer for RA disease diagnosis.

We introduce FrontierScience, a benchmark evaluating expert-level scientific reasoning in frontier language models. Recent model progress has nearly saturated existing science benchmarks, which often rely on multiple-choice knowledge questions or already published information. FrontierScience addresses this gap through two complementary tracks: (1) Olympiad, consisting of international olympiad problems at the level of IPhO, IChO, and IBO, and (2) Research, consisting of PhD-level, open-ended problems representative of sub-tasks in scientific research. FrontierScience contains several hundred questions (including 160 in the open-sourced gold set) covering subfields across physics, chemistry, and biology, from quantum electrodynamics to synthetic organic chemistry. All Olympiad problems are originally produced by international Olympiad medalists and national team coaches to ensure standards of difficulty, originality, and factuality. All Research problems are research sub-tasks written and verified by PhD scientists (doctoral candidates, postdoctoral researchers, or professors). For Research, we introduce a granular rubric-based evaluation framework to assess model capabilities throughout the process of solving a research task, rather than judging only a standalone final answer.

Fact-checking is the task of verifying the veracity of claims by assessing their assertions against credible evidence. The vast majority of fact-checking studies focus exclusively on political claims. Very little research explores fact-checking for other topics, specifically subject matters for which expertise is required. We present the first study of explainable fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise. For our case study we choose the setting of public health. To support this case study we construct a new dataset PUBHEALTH of 11.8K claims accompanied by journalist crafted, gold standard explanations (i.e., judgments) to support the fact-check labels for claims. We explore two tasks: veracity prediction and explanation generation. We also define and evaluate, with humans and computationally, three coherence properties of explanation quality. Our results indicate that, by training on in-domain data, gains can be made in explainable, automated fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise.

The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units (such as verification, debate, and aggregation) and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Our framework establishes a foundation for scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for both researchers and practitioners.

One of the most critical tasks for startups is to validate their business model. Therefore, entrepreneurs try to collect information such as feedback from other actors to assess the validity of their assumptions and make decisions. However, previous work on decisional guidance for business model validation provides no solution for the highly uncertain and complex context of earlystage startups. The purpose of this paper is, thus, to develop design principles for a Hybrid Intelligence decision support system (HI-DSS) that combines the complementary capabilities of human and machine intelligence. We follow a design science research approach to design a prototype artifact and a set of design principles. Our study provides prescriptive knowledge for HI-DSS and contributes to previous work on decision support for business models, the applications of complementary strengths of humans and machines for making decisions, and support systems for extremely uncertain decision-making problems.

Legal reasoning requires not only correct outcomes but also procedurally compliant reasoning processes. However, existing methods lack mechanisms to verify intermediate reasoning steps, allowing errors such as inapplicable statute citations to propagate undetected through the reasoning chain. To address this, we propose LawThinker, an autonomous legal research agent that adopts an Explore-Verify-Memorize strategy for dynamic judicial environments. The core idea is to enforce verification as an atomic operation after every knowledge exploration step. A DeepVerifier module examines each retrieval result along three dimensions of knowledge accuracy, fact-law relevance, and procedural compliance, with a memory module for cross-round knowledge reuse in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on the dynamic benchmark J1-EVAL show that LawThinker achieves a 24% improvement over direct reasoning and an 11% gain over workflow-based methods, with particularly strong improvements on process-oriented metrics. Evaluations on three static benchmarks further confirm its generalization capability. The code is available at https://github.com/yxy-919/LawThinker-agent .