Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown that their reasoning capabilities can be significantly improved through Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR), particularly in domains like mathematics and programming, where ground-truth correctness can be automatically evaluated. However, extending this success to other reasoning-intensive domains remains challenging due to the scarcity of high-quality, verifiable datasets and the high cost of human supervision. In this work, we introduce the Loong Project: an open-source framework for scalable synthetic data generation and verification across a diverse range of reasoning-intensive domains. The framework consists of two key components: (1) LoongBench, a curated seed dataset containing 8,729 human-vetted examples across 12 domains (e.g., Advanced Mathematics, Chemistry, Logic), each paired with executable code and rich metadata; and (2) LoongEnv, a modular synthetic data generation environment that supports multiple prompting strategies to produce new question-answer-code triples. Together, these components form an agent-environment loop that enables reinforcement learning, where an LLM-based agent is rewarded for generating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) solutions that align with code-executed answers. Empirically, we benchmark LoongBench on a broad suite of both open-source and proprietary LLMs to evaluate domain coverage and reveal performance bottlenecks. In addition, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of synthetic data generated by LoongEnv, examining correctness, difficulty, and diversity. Code and documentation are available at https://github.com/camel-ai/loong.

Effective content moderation systems require explicit classification criteria, yet online communities like subreddits often operate with diverse, implicit standards. This work introduces a novel approach to identify and extract these implicit criteria from historical moderation data using an interpretable architecture. We represent moderation criteria as score tables of lexical expressions associated with content removal, enabling systematic comparison across different communities. Our experiments demonstrate that these extracted lexical patterns effectively replicate the performance of neural moderation models while providing transparent insights into decision-making processes. The resulting criteria matrix reveals significant variations in how seemingly shared norms are actually enforced, uncovering previously undocumented moderation patterns including community-specific tolerances for language, features for topical restrictions, and underlying subcategories of the toxic speech classification.

The rise of autonomous pricing systems has sparked growing concern over algorithmic collusion in markets from retail to housing. This paper examines controlled information quality as an ex ante policy lever: by reducing the fidelity of data that pricing algorithms draw on, regulators can frustrate collusion before supracompetitive prices emerge. We show, first, that information quality is the central driver of competitive outcomes, shaping prices, profits, and consumer welfare. Second, we demonstrate that collusion can be slowed or destabilized by injecting carefully calibrated noise into pooled market data, yielding a feasibility region where intervention disrupts cartels without undermining legitimate pricing. Together, these results highlight information control as a lightweight yet practical lever to blunt digital collusion at its source.

We introduce CoreThink, a state-of-the-art Reasoning Layer built upon a novel reasoning method called General Symbolics. This approach diverges from reasoning paradigms such as test-time scaling, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). CoreThink General Symbolic Reasoner (GSR) is specifically structured around three key use cases: tool-calling, code generation, and planning, demonstrating exemplary performance across a total of seven benchmarks in their respective areas. Notably, we are achieving SOTA scores of 66.66% on Livecodebench v6, 89% on Instruction-Following Evals, and 24.4% on ARC-AGI-2. We also present an agentic coding IDE, developed using the principles of General Symbolics, which achieves a state-of-the-art accuracy of 62.3% on SWE-Bench Lite. We are able to achieve these improvements without any fine-tuning or training costs. Our Reasoning Layer is designed to provide a pure performance uplift, ensuring that a model's accuracy on reasoning tasks is never negatively impacted. We argue that incumbent methods will eventually lead to diminishing returns in LLM performance, necessitating the development of new reasoning techniques. This technical report details our approach at a high level and the availability of the CoreThink models for reasoning-intensive use cases.

We present L-MARS (Legal Multi-Agent Workflow with Orchestrated Reasoning and Agentic Search), a system that reduces hallucination and uncertainty in legal question answering through coordinated multi-agent reasoning and retrieval. Unlike single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), L-MARS decomposes queries into subproblems, issues targeted searches across heterogeneous sources (Serper web, local RAG, CourtListener case law), and employs a Judge Agent to verify sufficiency, jurisdiction, and temporal validity before answer synthesis. This iterative reasoning-search-verification loop maintains coherence, filters noisy evidence, and grounds answers in authoritative law. We evaluated L-MARS on LegalSearchQA, a new benchmark of 200 up-to-date multiple choice legal questions in 2025. Results show that L-MARS substantially improves factual accuracy, reduces uncertainty, and achieves higher preference scores from both human experts and LLM-based judges. Our work demonstrates that multi-agent reasoning with agentic search offers a scalable and reproducible blueprint for deploying LLMs in high-stakes domains requiring precise legal retrieval and deliberation.

The field of embodied AI (EAI) is rapidly advancing. Unlike virtual AI, EAI systems can exist in, learn from, reason about, and act in the physical world. With recent advances in AI models and hardware, EAI systems are becoming increasingly capable across wider operational domains. While EAI systems can offer many benefits, they also pose significant risks, including physical harm from malicious use, mass surveillance, as well as economic and societal disruption. These risks require urgent attention from policymakers, as existing policies governing industrial robots and autonomous vehicles are insufficient to address the full range of concerns EAI systems present. To help address this issue, this paper makes three contributions. First, we provide a taxonomy of the physical, informational, economic, and social risks EAI systems pose. Second, we analyze policies in the US, EU, and UK to assess how existing frameworks address these risks and to identify critical gaps. We conclude by offering policy recommendations for the safe and beneficial deployment of EAI systems, such as mandatory testing and certification schemes, clarified liability frameworks, and strategies to manage EAI's potentially transformative economic and societal impacts.

Automated agents, powered by Large language models (LLMs), are emerging as the go-to tool for querying information. However, evaluation benchmarks for LLM agents rarely feature natural questions that are both information-seeking and genuinely time-consuming for humans. To address this gap we introduce MoNaCo, a benchmark of 1,315 natural and time-consuming questions that require dozens, and at times hundreds, of intermediate steps to solve -- far more than any existing QA benchmark. To build MoNaCo, we developed a decomposed annotation pipeline to elicit and manually answer real-world time-consuming questions at scale. Frontier LLMs evaluated on MoNaCo achieve at most 61.2% F1, hampered by low recall and hallucinations. Our results underscore the limitations of LLM-powered agents in handling the complexity and sheer breadth of real-world information-seeking tasks -- with MoNaCo providing an effective resource for tracking such progress. The MoNaCo benchmark, codebase, prompts and models predictions are all publicly available at: https://tomerwolgithub.github.io/monaco

Evaluations of dangerous AI capabilities are important for managing catastrophic risks. Public transparency into these evaluations - including what they test, how they are conducted, and how their results inform decisions - is crucial for building trust in AI development. We propose STREAM (A Standard for Transparently Reporting Evaluations in AI Model Reports), a standard to improve how model reports disclose evaluation results, initially focusing on chemical and biological (ChemBio) benchmarks. Developed in consultation with 23 experts across government, civil society, academia, and frontier AI companies, this standard is designed to (1) be a practical resource to help AI developers present evaluation results more clearly, and (2) help third parties identify whether model reports provide sufficient detail to assess the rigor of the ChemBio evaluations. We concretely demonstrate our proposed best practices with "gold standard" examples, and also provide a three-page reporting template to enable AI developers to implement our recommendations more easily.

Legal practitioners, particularly those early in their careers, face complex, high-stakes tasks that require adaptive, context-sensitive reasoning. While AI holds promise in supporting legal work, current datasets and models are narrowly focused on isolated subtasks and fail to capture the end-to-end decision-making required in real-world practice. To address this gap, we introduce LawFlow, a dataset of complete end-to-end legal workflows collected from trained law students, grounded in real-world business entity formation scenarios. Unlike prior datasets focused on input-output pairs or linear chains of thought, LawFlow captures dynamic, modular, and iterative reasoning processes that reflect the ambiguity, revision, and client-adaptive strategies of legal practice. Using LawFlow, we compare human and LLM-generated workflows, revealing systematic differences in structure, reasoning flexibility, and plan execution. Human workflows tend to be modular and adaptive, while LLM workflows are more sequential, exhaustive, and less sensitive to downstream implications. Our findings also suggest that legal professionals prefer AI to carry out supportive roles, such as brainstorming, identifying blind spots, and surfacing alternatives, rather than executing complex workflows end-to-end. Our results highlight both the current limitations of LLMs in supporting complex legal workflows and opportunities for developing more collaborative, reasoning-aware legal AI systems. All data and code are available on our project page (https://minnesotanlp.github.io/LawFlow-website/).

AI is transforming the healthcare domain and is increasingly helping practitioners to make health-related decisions. Therefore, accountability becomes a crucial concern for critical AI-driven decisions. Although regulatory bodies, such as the EU commission, provide guidelines, they are highlevel and focus on the ''what'' that should be done and less on the ''how'', creating a knowledge gap for actors. Through an extensive analysis, we found that the term accountability is perceived and dealt with in many different ways, depending on the actor's expertise and domain of work. With increasing concerns about AI accountability issues and the ambiguity around this term, this paper bridges the gap between the ''what'' and ''how'' of AI accountability, specifically for AI systems in healthcare. We do this by analysing the concept of accountability, formulating an accountability framework, and providing a three-tier structure for handling various accountability mechanisms. Our accountability framework positions the regulations of healthcare AI systems and the mechanisms adopted by the actors under a consistent accountability regime. Moreover, the three-tier structure guides the actors of the healthcare AI system to categorise the mechanisms based on their conduct. Through our framework, we advocate that decision-making in healthcare AI holds shared dependencies, where accountability should be dealt with jointly and should foster collaborations. We highlight the role of explainability in instigating communication and information sharing between the actors to further facilitate the collaborative process.