Low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) inherently captures both pulmonary and cardiac structures, offering a unique opportunity for joint assessment of lung and cardiovascular health. However, most existing approaches treat these domains as independent tasks, overlooking their physiological interplay and shared imaging biomarkers. We propose an Explainable Cross-Disease Reasoning Framework that enables interpretable cardiopulmonary risk assessment from a single LDCT scan. The framework introduces an agentic reasoning process that emulates clinical diagnostic thinking-first perceiving pulmonary findings, then reasoning through established medical knowledge, and finally deriving a cardiovascular judgment with explanatory rationale. It integrates three synergistic components: a pulmonary perception module that summarizes lung abnormalities, a knowledge-guided reasoning module that infers their cardiovascular implications, and a cardiac representation module that encodes structural biomarkers. Their outputs are fused to produce a holistic cardiovascular risk prediction that is both accurate and physiologically grounded. Experiments on the NLST cohort demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance for CVD screening and mortality prediction, outperforming single-disease and purely image-based baselines. Beyond quantitative gains, the framework provides human-verifiable reasoning that aligns with cardiological understanding, revealing coherent links between pulmonary abnormalities and cardiac stress mechanisms. Overall, this work establishes a unified and explainable paradigm for cardiovascular analysis from LDCT, bridging the gap between image-based prediction and mechanism-based medical interpretation.

Large-scale foundation models demonstrate strong performance across language, vision, and reasoning tasks. However, how they internally structure and stabilize concepts remains elusive. Inspired by causal inference, we introduce the MindCraft framework built upon Concept Trees. By applying spectral decomposition at each layer and linking principal directions into branching Concept Paths, Concept Trees reconstruct the hierarchical emergence of concepts, revealing exactly when they diverge from shared representations into linearly separable subspaces. Empirical evaluations across diverse scenarios across disciplines, including medical diagnosis, physics reasoning, and political decision-making, show that Concept Trees recover semantic hierarchies, disentangle latent concepts, and can be widely applied across multiple domains. The Concept Tree establishes a widely applicable and powerful framework that enables in-depth analysis of conceptual representations in deep models, marking a significant step forward in the foundation of interpretable AI.

While video-generation-based embodied world models have gained increasing attention, their reliance on large-scale embodied interaction data remains a key bottleneck. The scarcity, difficulty of collection, and high dimensionality of embodied data fundamentally limit the alignment granularity between language and actions and exacerbate the challenge of long-horizon video generation--hindering generative models from achieving a "GPT moment" in the embodied domain. There is a naive observation: the diversity of embodied data far exceeds the relatively small space of possible primitive motions. Based on this insight, we propose a novel paradigm for world modeling--Primitive Embodied World Models (PEWM). By restricting video generation to fixed short horizons, our approach 1) enables fine-grained alignment between linguistic concepts and visual representations of robotic actions, 2) reduces learning complexity, 3) improves data efficiency in embodied data collection, and 4) decreases inference latency. By equipping with a modular Vision-Language Model (VLM) planner and a Start-Goal heatmap Guidance mechanism (SGG), PEWM further enables flexible closed-loop control and supports compositional generalization of primitive-level policies over extended, complex tasks. Our framework leverages the spatiotemporal vision priors in video models and the semantic awareness of VLMs to bridge the gap between fine-grained physical interaction and high-level reasoning, paving the way toward scalable, interpretable, and general-purpose embodied intelligence.

Research and practice in Intelligent Design (ID) have significantly enhanced engineering innovation, efficiency, quality, and productivity over recent decades, fundamentally reshaping how engineering designers think, behave, and interact with design processes. The recent emergence of Foundation Models (FMs), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has demonstrated general knowledge-based reasoning capabilities, and open new avenues for further transformation in engineering design. In this context, this paper introduces Intelligent Design 4.0 (ID 4.0) as an emerging paradigm empowered by foundation model-based agentic AI systems. We review the historical evolution of ID across four distinct stages: rule-based expert systems, task-specific machine learning models, large-scale foundation AI models, and the recent emerging paradigm of foundation model-based multi-agent collaboration. We propose an ontological framework for ID 4.0 and discuss its potential to support end-to-end automation of engineering design processes through coordinated, autonomous multi-agent-based systems. Furthermore, we discuss challenges and opportunities of ID 4.0, including perspectives on data foundations, agent collaboration mechanisms, and the formulation of design problems and objectives. In sum, these insights provide a foundation for advancing Intelligent Design toward greater adaptivity, autonomy, and effectiveness in addressing the growing complexity of engineering design.

Recent impressive results from large reasoning models have been interpreted as a triumph of Chain of Thought (CoT), especially of training on CoTs sampled from base LLMs to help find new reasoning patterns. While these traces certainly seem to help model performance, it is not clear how they actually influence it, with some works ascribing semantics to the traces and others cautioning against relying on them as transparent and faithful proxies of the model's internal computational process. To systematically investigate the role of end-user semantics of derivational traces, we set up a controlled study where we train transformer models from scratch on formally verifiable reasoning traces and the solutions they lead to. We notice that, despite significant gains over the solution-only baseline, models trained on entirely correct traces can still produce invalid reasoning traces even when arriving at correct solutions. More interestingly, our experiments also show that models trained on corrupted traces, whose intermediate reasoning steps bear no relation to the problem they accompany, perform similarly to those trained on correct ones, and even generalize better on out-of-distribution tasks. We also study the effect of GRPO-based RL post-training on trace validity, noting that while solution accuracy increase, this is not accompanied by any improvements in trace validity. Finally, we examine whether reasoning-trace length reflects inference-time scaling and find that trace length is largely agnostic to the underlying computational complexity of the problem being solved. These results challenge the assumption that intermediate tokens or ``Chains of Thought'' reflect or induce predictable reasoning behaviors and caution against anthropomorphizing such outputs or over-interpreting them (despite their mostly seemingly forms) as evidence of human-like or algorithmic behaviors in language models.

While recent world models generate highly realistic videos, their ability to perform robot path planning remains unclear and unquantified. We introduce Target-Bench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate world models on mapless path planning toward semantic targets in real-world environments. Target-Bench provides 450 robot-collected video sequences spanning 45 semantic categories with SLAM-based ground truth trajectories. Our evaluation pipeline recovers camera motion from generated videos and measures planning performance using five complementary metrics that quantify target-reaching capability, trajectory accuracy, and directional consistency. We evaluate state-of-the-art models including Sora 2, Veo 3.1, and the Wan series. The best off-the-shelf model (Wan2.2-Flash) achieves only 0.299 overall score, revealing significant limitations in current world models for robotic planning tasks. We show that fine-tuning an open-source 5B-parameter model on only 325 scenarios from our dataset achieves 0.345 overall score -- an improvement of more than 400% over its base version (0.066) and 15% higher than the best off-the-shelf model. We will open-source the code and dataset.

Modern language models fail a fundamental requirement of trustworthy intelligence: knowing when not to answer. Despite achieving impressive accuracy on benchmarks, these models produce confident hallucinations, even when wrong answers carry catastrophic consequences. Our evaluations on GSM8K, MedQA and GPQA show frontier models almost never abstain despite explicit warnings of severe penalties, suggesting that prompts cannot override training that rewards any answer over no answer. As a remedy, we propose Reinforced Hesitation (RH): a modification to Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to use ternary rewards (+1 correct, 0 abstention, -$λ$ error) instead of binary. Controlled experiments on logic puzzles reveal that varying $λ$ produces distinct models along a Pareto frontier, where each training penalty yields the optimal model for its corresponding risk regime: low penalties produce aggressive answerers, high penalties conservative abstainers. We then introduce two inference strategies that exploit trained abstention as a coordination signal: cascading routes queries through models with decreasing risk tolerance, while self-cascading re-queries the same model on abstention. Both outperform majority voting with lower computational cost. These results establish abstention as a first-class training objective that transforms ``I don't know'' from failure into a coordination signal, enabling models to earn trust through calibrated honesty about their limits.

Both humans and machine learning models learn from experience, particularly in safety- and reliability-critical domains. While psychology seeks to understand human cognition, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) develops methods to interpret machine learning models. This study bridges these domains by applying computational tools from XAI to analyze human learning. We modeled human behavior during a complex real-world task -- tuning a particle accelerator -- by constructing graphs of operator subtasks. Applying techniques such as community detection and hierarchical clustering to archival operator data, we reveal how operators decompose the problem into simpler components and how these problem-solving structures evolve with expertise. Our findings illuminate how humans develop efficient strategies in the absence of globally optimal solutions, and demonstrate the utility of XAI-based methods for quantitatively studying human cognition.

Test-time scaling has been shown to substantially improve large language models' (LLMs) mathematical reasoning. However, for a large portion of mathematical corpora, especially theorem proving, RLVR's scalability is limited: intermediate reasoning is crucial, while final answers are difficult to directly and reliably verify. Meanwhile, token-level SFT often degenerates into rote memorization rather than inducing longer chains of thought. Inspired by BERT's self-supervised tasks, we propose MR-RLVR (Masked-and-Reordered RLVR), which constructs process-level self-supervised rewards via "masked-then-fill" and "step reordering" to extract learnable signals from intermediate reasoning. Our training pipeline comprises two stages: we first perform self-supervised training on sampled mathematical calculation and proof data; we then conduct RLVR fine-tuning on mathematical calculation datasets where only outcomes are verifiable. We implement MR-RLVR on Qwen2.5-3B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, and evaluate on AIME24, AIME25, AMC23, and MATH500. Under a fixed sampling and decoding budget, MR-RLVR achieves average relative gains over the original RLVR of +9.86% Pass@1, +5.27% Pass@5, and +4.00% Pass@8. These results indicate that incorporating process-aware self-supervised signals can effectively enhance RLVR's scalability and performance in only outcome-verifiable settings.

Vision-Language Navigation requires agents to act coherently over long horizons by understanding not only local visual context but also how far they have advanced within a multi-step instruction. However, recent Vision-Language-Action models focus on direct action prediction and earlier progress methods predict numeric achievements; both overlook the monotonic co-progression property of the observation and instruction sequences. Building on this insight, Progress-Think introduces semantic progress reasoning, predicting instruction-style progress from visual observations to enable more accurate navigation. To achieve this without expensive annotations, we propose a three-stage framework. In the initial stage, Self-Aligned Progress Pretraining bootstraps a reasoning module via a novel differentiable alignment between visual history and instruction prefixes. Then, Progress-Guided Policy Pretraining injects learned progress states into the navigation context, guiding the policy toward consistent actions. Finally, Progress-Policy Co-Finetuning jointly optimizes both modules with tailored progress-aware reinforcement objectives. Experiments on R2R-CE and RxR-CE show state-of-the-art success and efficiency, demonstrating that semantic progress yields a more consistent representation of navigation advancement.