Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently confabulate scientific facts, severely undermining their trustworthiness. Addressing this challenge requires benchmarks that go beyond binary factuality and enable fine-grained evaluation. We introduce ReFACT (Reddit False And Correct Texts), a benchmark of 1,001 expert-annotated question-answer pairs spanning diverse scientific domains for the detection of scientific confabulation. Each instance includes both a scientifically correct answer and a non-factual counterpart annotated with precise error spans and error types. ReFACT enables multi-stage evaluation: (1) confabulation detection, (2) fine-grained error localization, and (3) correction. We benchmark 9 state-of-the-art LLMs, revealing limited performance (about 50 percent accuracy). Even top models such as GPT-4o fail to distinguish factual from confabulated scientific answers, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM-as-judge evaluation paradigms. Our findings highlight the need for fine-grained, human-validated benchmarks to detect and correct scientific confabulation in domain-specific contexts. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/ddz5431/ReFACT

Recent advancements in LLMs have contributed to the rise of advanced conversational assistants that can assist with user needs through natural language conversation. This paper presents a ScheduleMe, a multi-agent calendar assistant for users to manage google calendar events in natural language. The system uses a graph-structured coordination mechanism where a central supervisory agent supervises specialized task agents, allowing modularity, conflicts resolution, and context-aware interactions to resolve ambiguities and evaluate user commands. This approach sets an example of how structured reasoning and agent cooperation might convince operators to increase the usability and flexibility of personal calendar assistant tools.

Reasoning language models have demonstrated remarkable performance on many challenging tasks in math, science, and coding. Choosing the right reasoning model for practical deployment involves a performance and cost tradeoff at two key levels: model size and reasoning budget, where larger models and higher reasoning budget lead to better performance but with increased cost and latency. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have leveraged reinforcement learning (RL) (Shao et al., 2024) to train models to reason using chain-of-thought before generating an output. The excitement has led to a flurry of new open-source and proprietary RLMs; for example, Hugging Face already lists 2, 710 RLMs as of September 17th, 2025. These models have varying sizes, specialize in different domains, and offer various configurations, including reasoning efforts to balance performance and cost. For example, OpenAI's reasoning models (OpenAI & et al., 2024) have "low", "medium", and "high" reasoning budgets for developers to choose from depending on their application. Always choosing the "best" and most expensive RLM configuration with the highest level of reasoning budget is not always the "right" choice for every query: for some simpler queries, there might exist a "worse" and cheaper RLM configuration with low or no reasoning budget that correctly answers the query, resulting in significant cost savings without sacrificing performance. Indeed, we empirically observe the same phenomenon in Figure 1, where we show that over 50% of the queries from MA TH-500 (Hendrycks et al., 2021c) can be solved using an RLM as small as Qwen3-0.6B with minimal reasoning budget (measured by the number of reasoning tokens). On the contrary, some challenging queries require a much more capable RLM with high reasoning effort. Strong RLMs can also "over-think" which could hurt performance even for simple queries (Su et al., 2025; Hassid et al., 2025; Hong et al., 2025; Shojaee et al., 2025; Ghosal et al., 2025). This performance-cost tradeoff presents a challenge for practitioners: how to choose the "right" RLM and its configu-Work done during an internship at Adobe. Figure 1: Left: Our pilot study on MA TH-500 (Hendrycks et al., 2021c) shows a performance differential over (RLM, reasoning budget) configurations with the smallest RLM already solving over 50% of the queries with minimal reasoning.

The ability to estimate the quality of scientific papers is central to how both humans and AI systems will advance scientific knowledge in the future. However, existing LLM-based estimation methods suffer from high inference cost, whereas the faster direct score regression approach is limited by scale inconsistencies. We present NAIPv2, a debiased and efficient framework for paper quality estimation. NAIPv2 employs pairwise learning within domain-year groups to reduce inconsistencies in reviewer ratings and introduces the Review Tendency Signal (RTS) as a probabilistic integration of reviewer scores and confidences. To support training and evaluation, we further construct NAIDv2, a large-scale dataset of 24,276 ICLR submissions enriched with metadata and detailed structured content. Trained on pairwise comparisons but enabling efficient pointwise prediction at deployment, NAIPv2 achieves state-of-the-art performance (78.2% AUC, 0.432 Spearman), while maintaining scalable, linear-time efficiency at inference. Notably, on unseen NeurIPS submissions, it further demonstrates strong generalization, with predicted scores increasing consistently across decision categories from Rejected to Oral. These findings establish NAIPv2 as a debiased and scalable framework for automated paper quality estimation, marking a step toward future scientific intelligence systems. Code and dataset are released at sway.cloud.microsoft/Pr42npP80MfPhvj8.

The paradigm shift in large language models (LLMs) from instinctive responses to chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has fueled two prevailing assumptions: (1) reasoning capabilities only emerge in sufficiently large models, and (2) such capabilities require training on massive datasets. While the first assumption has already been challenged by recent sub-billion-parameter reasoning models such as Qwen3-0.6B and DeepSeek distilled variants, the second remains largely unquestioned. In this work, we revisit the necessity of scaling to extremely large corpora (>10T tokens) for reasoning emergence. By carefully curating and resampling open-source datasets that we identify as beneficial under our designed metrics, we demonstrate that strong reasoning abilities can emerge with far less data. Specifically, we show that only ~2T tokens of high-quality data are sufficient, and pre-training with 4.2T tokens on the dataset resampled from these ~2T tokens, followed by a established post-training procedure, enables the development of MobileLLM-R1, a series of sub-billion-parameter reasoning models that substantially outperform prior models trained on fully open-sourced data. For example, MobileLLM-R1-950M achieves an AIME score of 15.5, compared to just 0.6 for OLMo-2-1.48B and 0.3 for SmolLM-2-1.7B. Remarkably, despite being trained on only 11.7% of the tokens compared to Qwen3's proprietary 36T-token corpus for pretraining, MobileLLM-R1-950M matches or surpasses Qwen3-0.6B across multiple reasoning benchmarks. To facilitate further research in this direction, we have released the complete training recipe, data sources, data mixing ratio, and model checkpoints, together with the key insights obtained throughout this study.

We study empirical scaling laws for language model merging measured by cross-entropy. Despite its wide practical use, merging lacks a quantitative rule that predicts returns as we add experts or scale the model size. We identify a compact power law that links model size and expert number: the size-dependent floor decreases with model capacity, while the merging tail exhibits clear diminishing returns in the number of experts. The law holds in-domain and cross-domain, tightly fits measured curves across diverse architectures and methods (Average, TA, TIES, DARE), and explains two robust regularities: most gains arrive early, and variability shrinks as more experts are included. Building on this, we present a simple theory that explains why gains fall roughly as 1/k and links the floor and tail to properties of the base model and the diversity across domains. This law enables predictive planning: estimate how many experts are needed to reach a target loss, decide when to stop adding experts, and trade off scaling the base model versus adding experts under a fixed budget--turning merging from heuristic practice into a computationally efficient, planable alternative to multitask training. This suggests a scaling principle for distributed generative AI: predictable gains can be achieved by composing specialists, offering a complementary path toward AGI-level systems.

Can humans identify AI-generated (fake) videos and provide grounded reasons? While video generation models have advanced rapidly, a critical dimension -- whether humans can detect deepfake traces within a generated video, i.e., spatiotemporal grounded visual artifacts that reveal a video as machine generated -- has been largely overlooked. We introduce DeeptraceReward, the first fine-grained, spatially- and temporally- aware benchmark that annotates human-perceived fake traces for video generation reward. The dataset comprises 4.3K detailed annotations across 3.3K high-quality generated videos. Each annotation provides a natural-language explanation, pinpoints a bounding-box region containing the perceived trace, and marks precise onset and offset timestamps. We consolidate these annotations into 9 major categories of deepfake traces that lead humans to identify a video as AI-generated, and train multimodal language models (LMs) as reward models to mimic human judgments and localizations. On DeeptraceReward, our 7B reward model outperforms GPT-5 by 34.7% on average across fake clue identification, grounding, and explanation. Interestingly, we observe a consistent difficulty gradient: binary fake v.s. real classification is substantially easier than fine-grained deepfake trace detection; within the latter, performance degrades from natural language explanations (easiest), to spatial grounding, to temporal labeling (hardest). By foregrounding human-perceived deepfake traces, DeeptraceReward provides a rigorous testbed and training signal for socially aware and trustworthy video generation.

Safety is a paramount concern in clinical chatbot applications, where inaccurate or harmful responses can lead to serious consequences. Existing methods--such as guardrails and tool calling--often fall short in addressing the nuanced demands of the clinical domain. In this paper, we introduce TACOS (TAxonomy of COmprehensive Safety for Clinical Agents), a fine-grained, 21-class taxonomy that integrates safety filtering and tool selection into a single user intent classification step. TACOS is a taxonomy that can cover a wide spectrum of clinical and non-clinical queries, explicitly modeling varying safety thresholds and external tool dependencies. To validate our taxonomy, we curate a TACOS-annotated dataset and perform extensive experiments. Our results demonstrate the value of a new taxonomy specialized for clinical agent settings, and reveal useful insights about train data distribution and pretrained knowledge of base models.

Reliable evaluation of large language models is essential to ensure their applicability in practical scenarios. Traditional benchmark-based evaluation methods often rely on fixed reference answers, limiting their ability to capture important qualitative aspects of generated responses. To address these shortcomings, we propose an integrated evaluation framework called \textit{self-refining descriptive evaluation with expert-driven diagnostics}, SPEED, which utilizes specialized functional experts to perform comprehensive, descriptive analyses of model outputs. Unlike conventional approaches, SPEED actively incorporates expert feedback across multiple dimensions, including hallucination detection, toxicity assessment, and lexical-contextual appropriateness. Experimental results demonstrate that SPEED achieves robust and consistent evaluation performance across diverse domains and datasets. Additionally, by employing relatively compact expert models, SPEED demonstrates superior resource efficiency compared to larger-scale evaluators. These findings illustrate that SPEED significantly enhances fairness and interpretability in LLM evaluations, offering a promising alternative to existing evaluation methodologies.

We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate effective, user-facing explanations from a mathematically interpretable recommendation model. The model is based on constrained matrix factorization, where user types are explicitly represented and predicted item scores share the same scale as observed ratings, making the model's internal representations and predicted scores directly interpretable. This structure is translated into natural language explanations using carefully designed LLM prompts. Many works in explainable AI rely on automatic evaluation metrics, which often fail to capture users' actual needs and perceptions. In contrast, we adopt a user-centered approach: we conduct a study with 326 participants who assessed the quality of the explanations across five key dimensions-transparency, effectiveness, persuasion, trust, and satisfaction-as well as the recommendations themselves. To evaluate how different explanation strategies are perceived, we generate multiple explanation types from the same underlying model, varying the input information provided to the LLM. Our analysis reveals that all explanation types are generally well received, with moderate statistical differences between strategies. User comments further underscore how participants react to each type of explanation, offering complementary insights beyond the quantitative results.