The paradigm of agentic AI is shifting from engineered complex workflows to post-training native models. However, existing agents are typically confined to static, predefined action spaces--such as exclusively using APIs, GUI events, or robotic commands. This rigidity limits their adaptability in dynamic environments where the optimal granularity of interaction varies contextually. To bridge this gap, we propose CrossAgent, a unified agentic model that masters heterogeneous action spaces and autonomously selects the most effective interface for each step of a trajectory. We introduce a comprehensive training pipeline that integrates cold-start supervised fine-tuning with a Multi-Turn Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) algorithm. This approach enables the agent to learn adaptive action switching--balancing high-level efficiency with low-level precision--without human-specified rules. Extensive experiments on over 800 tasks in the open-world Minecraft environment demonstrate that CrossAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance. By dynamically leveraging the strengths of diverse action spaces, our model significantly outperforms fixed-action baselines, exhibiting superior generalization and efficiency in long-horizon reasoning. All code and models are available at https://github.com/CraftJarvis/OpenHA

This paper presents a neurosymbolic framework for information extraction from documents, evaluated on transactional documents. We introduce a schema-based approach that integrates symbolic validation methods to enable more effective zero-shot output and knowledge distillation. The methodology uses language models to generate candidate extractions, which are then filtered through syntactic-, task-, and domain-level validation to ensure adherence to domain-specific arithmetic constraints. Our contributions include a comprehensive schema for transactional documents, relabeled datasets, and an approach for generating high-quality labels for knowledge distillation. Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements in $F_1$-scores and accuracy, highlighting the effectiveness of neurosymbolic validation in transactional document processing.

Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation, yet detecting it remains difficult. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen's $κ$, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Rater Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

This article presents the creation of an Estonian-language dataset for document-level subjectivity, analyzes the resulting annotations, and reports an initial experiment of automatic subjectivity analysis using a large language model (LLM). The dataset comprises of 1,000 documents-300 journalistic articles and 700 randomly selected web texts-each rated for subjectivity on a continuous scale from 0 (fully objective) to 100 (fully subjective) by four annotators. As the inter-annotator correlations were moderate, with some texts receiving scores at the opposite ends of the scale, a subset of texts with the most divergent scores was re-annotated, with the inter-annotator correlation improving. In addition to human annotations, the dataset includes scores generated by GPT-5 as an experiment on annotation automation. These scores were similar to human annotators, however several differences emerged, suggesting that while LLM based automatic subjectivity scoring is feasible, it is not an interchangeable alternative to human annotation, and its suitability depends on the intended application.

We present an end-to-end framework for planning supported by verifiers. An orchestrator receives a human specification written in natural language and converts it into a PDDL (Planning Domain Definition Language) model, where the domain and problem are iteratively refined by sub-modules (agents) to address common planning requirements, such as time constraints and optimality, as well as ambiguities and contradictions that may exist in the human specification. The validated domain and problem are then passed to an external planning engine to generate a plan. The orchestrator and agents are powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) and require no human intervention at any stage of the process. Finally, a module translates the final plan back into natural language to improve human readability while maintaining the correctness of each step. We demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of our framework across various domains and tasks, including the Google NaturalPlan benchmark and PlanBench, as well as planning problems like Blocksworld and the Tower of Hanoi (where LLMs are known to struggle even with small instances). Our framework can be integrated with any PDDL planning engine and validator (such as Fast Downward, LPG, POPF, V AL, and uV AL, which we have tested) and represents a significant step toward end-to-end planning aided by LLMs.

Abstract--Most existing Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models rely primarily on RGB information, while ignoring geometric cues crucial for spatial reasoning and manipulation. In this work, we introduce GLaD, a geometry-aware VLA framework that incorporates 3D geometric priors during pretraining through knowledge distillation. Rather than distilling geometric features solely into the vision encoder, we align the LLM's hidden states corresponding to visual tokens with features from a frozen geometry-aware vision transformer (VGGT), ensuring that geometric understanding is deeply integrated into the multimodal representations that drive action prediction. Pretrained on the Bridge dataset with this geometry distillation mechanism, GLaD achieves 94.1% average success rate across four LIBERO task suites, outperforming UniVLA (92.5%) which uses identical pretraining data. These results validate that geometry-aware pretraining enhances spatial reasoning and policy generalization without requiring explicit depth sensors or 3D annotations. ISION-LANGUAGE-ACTION (VLA) models have emerged as a promising paradigm for embodied intelligence, enabling robots to generate control actions directly from visual observations and natural language instructions. Recent works [1]-[4] have demonstrated impressive performance on diverse manipulation tasks by leveraging large-scale multimodal pretraining. These models typically combine powerful vision encoders [5]-[7] and large language models to learn generalizable visuomotor policies from extensive robot demonstration datasets. Despite these advances, current VLA architectures fundamentally lack geometric understanding, which represent the capability of perceiving spatial positions, 3D structures, and relational arrangements among objects in a scene--knowledge that is essential for robots to reason about where objects are, how they relate to each other, and how to interact with them effectively. Most VLAs rely on vision encoders pretrained with 2D contrastive objectives such as CLIP [5] or SigLIP [7], which excel at capturing semantic correspondences between images and text but do not encode 3D spatial information.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has been highly successful in solving complex tasks in natural language processing, and recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have extended this paradigm to video reasoning. However, these models typically build on lengthy reasoning chains and large numbers of input visual tokens. Motivated by empirical observations from our benchmark study, we hypothesize that concise reasoning combined with a reduced set of visual tokens can be sufficient for effective video reasoning. T o evaluate this hypothesis, we design and validate an efficient post-training and inference framework that enhances a video MLLM's reasoning capability. Our framework enables models to operate on compressed visual tokens and generate brief reasoning traces prior to answering. The resulting models achieve substantially improved inference efficiency, deliver competitive performance across diverse benchmarks, and avoid reliance on manual CoT annotations or supervised fine-tuning. Collectively, our results suggest that long, human-like CoT reasoning may not be necessary for general video reasoning, and that concise reasoning can be both effective and efficient.

We present Auto-BenchmarkCard, a workflow for generating validated descriptions of AI benchmarks. Benchmark documentation is often incomplete or inconsistent, making it difficult to interpret and compare benchmarks across tasks or domains. Auto-BenchmarkCard addresses this gap by combining multi-agent data extraction from heterogeneous sources (e.g., Hugging Face, Unitxt, academic papers) with LLM-driven synthesis. A validation phase evaluates factual accuracy through atomic entailment scoring using the FactReasoner tool. This workflow has the potential to promote transparency, comparability, and reusability in AI benchmark reporting, enabling researchers and practitioners to better navigate and evaluate benchmark choices.

The proliferation of hate speech on Chinese social media poses urgent societal risks, yet traditional systems struggle to decode context-dependent rhetorical strategies and evolving slang. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel three-stage LLM-based framework: Prompt Engineering, Supervised Fine-tuning, and LLM Merging. First, context-aware prompts are designed to guide LLMs in extracting implicit hate patterns. Next, task-specific features are integrated during supervised fine-tuning to enhance domain adaptation. Finally, merging fine-tuned LLMs improves robustness against out-of-distribution cases. Evaluations on the STATE-ToxiCN benchmark validate the framework's effectiveness, demonstrating superior performance over baseline methods in detecting fine-grained hate speech.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming language sciences. However, their widespread deployment currently suffers from methodological fragmentation and a lack of systematic soundness. This study proposes two comprehensive methodological frameworks designed to guide the strategic and responsible application of LLMs in language sciences. The first method-selection framework defines and systematizes three distinct, complementary approaches, each linked to a specific research goal: (1) prompt-based interaction with general-use models for exploratory analysis and hypothesis generation; (2) fine-tuning of open-source models for confirmatory, theory-driven investigation and high-quality data generation; and (3) extraction of contextualized embeddings for further quantitative analysis and probing of model internal mechanisms. We detail the technical implementation and inherent trade-offs of each method, supported by empirical case studies. Based on the method-selection framework, the second systematic framework proposed provides constructed configurations that guide the practical implementation of multi-stage research pipelines based on these approaches. We then conducted a series of empirical experiments to validate our proposed framework, employing retrospective analysis, prospective application, and an expert evaluation survey. By enforcing the strategic alignment of research questions with the appropriate LLM methodology, the frameworks enable a critical paradigm shift in language science research. We believe that this system is fundamental for ensuring reproducibility, facilitating the critical evaluation of LLM mechanisms, and providing the structure necessary to move traditional linguistics from ad-hoc utility to verifiable, robust science.