Large Language Model (LLM) Agents, often trained with Reinforcement Learning (RL), are constrained by a dependency on human-curated data, limiting scalability and tethering AI to human knowledge. Existing self-evolution frameworks offer an alternative but are typically restricted by the model's inherent capabilities and single-round interactions, hindering the development of complex curricula involving tool use or dynamic reasoning. We introduce Agent0, a fully autonomous framework that evolves high-performing agents without external data through multi-step co-evolution and seamless tool integration. Agent0 establishes a symbiotic competition between two agents initialized from the same base LLM: a curriculum agent that proposes increasingly challenging frontier tasks, and an executor agent that learns to solve them. We integrate external tools to enhance the executor's problem-solving capacity; this improvement, in turn, pressures the curriculum agent to construct more complex, tool-aware tasks. Through this iterative process, Agent0 establishes a self-reinforcing cycle that continuously produces high-quality curricula. Empirically, Agent0 substantially boosts reasoning capabilities, improving the Qwen3-8B-Base model by 18% on mathematical reasoning and 24% on general reasoning benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/Agent0.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities across a range of reasoning and generation tasks. However, research studies have shown that LLMs lack the ability to identify causal relationships, a fundamental cornerstone of human intelligence. We first conduct an exploratory investigation of LLMs' behavior when asked to perform a causal-discovery task and find that they mostly rely on the semantic meaning of variable names, ignoring the observation data. This is unsurprising, given that LLMs were never trained to process structural datasets. To first tackle this challenge, we prompt the LLMs with the outputs of established causal discovery algorithms designed for observational datasets. These algorithm outputs effectively serve as the sufficient statistics of the observation data. However, quite surprisingly, we find that prompting the LLMs with these sufficient statistics decreases the LLMs' performance in causal discovery. To address this current limitation, we propose CARE, a framework that enhances LLMs' causal-reasoning ability by teaching them to effectively utilize the outputs of established causal-discovery algorithms through supervised fine-tuning. Experimental results show that a finetuned Qwen2.5-1.5B model produced by CARE significantly outperforms both traditional causal-discovery algorithms and state-of-the-art LLMs with over a thousand times more parameters, demonstrating effective utilization of its own knowledge and the external algorithmic clues.

Digital transformation in the cultural heritage sector has produced vast yet fragmented collections of artefact data. Existing frameworks for museum information systems struggle to integrate heterogeneous metadata, unstructured documents, and multimodal artefacts into a coherent and queryable form. We present MuseKG, an end-to-end knowledge-graph framework that unifies structured and unstructured museum data through symbolic-neural integration. MuseKG constructs a typed property graph linking objects, people, organisations, and visual or textual labels, and supports natural language queries. Evaluations on real museum collections demonstrate robust performance across queries over attributes, relations, and related entities, surpassing large-language-model zero-shot, few-shot and SPARQL prompt baselines. The results highlight the importance of symbolic grounding for interpretable and scalable cultural heritage reasoning, and pave the way for web-scale integration of digital heritage knowledge.

Large language model (LLM) agents have recently shown strong performance on repository-level issue resolution, but existing systems are almost exclusively designed for Python and rely heavily on lexical retrieval and shallow code navigation. These approaches transfer poorly to C++ projects, where overloaded identifiers, nested namespaces, template instantiations, and deep control-flow structures make context retrieval and fault localization substantially more difficult. As a result, state-of-the-art Python-oriented agents show a drastic performance drop on the C++ subset of MultiSWE-bench. We introduce INFCODE-C++, the first C++-aware autonomous system for end-to-end issue resolution. The system combines two complementary retrieval mechanisms -- semantic code-intent retrieval and deterministic AST-structured querying -- to construct accurate, language-aware context for repair.These components enable precise localization and robust patch synthesis in large, statically typed C++ repositories. Evaluated on the \texttt{MultiSWE-bench-CPP} benchmark, INFCODE-C++ achieves a resolution rate of 25.58\%, outperforming the strongest prior agent by 10.85 percentage points and more than doubling the performance of MSWE-agent. Ablation and behavioral studies further demonstrate the critical role of semantic retrieval, structural analysis, and accurate reproduction in C++ issue resolution. INFCODE-C++ highlights the need for language-aware reasoning in multi-language software agents and establishes a foundation for future research on scalable, LLM-driven repair for complex, statically typed ecosystems.

Large language models have advanced software engineering automation, yet resolving real-world software issues remains difficult because it requires repository-level reasoning, accurate diagnostics, and strong verification signals. Existing agent-based and pipeline-based methods often rely on insufficient tests, which can lead to patches that satisfy verification but fail to fix the underlying defect. We present InfCode, an adversarial multi-agent framework for automated repository-level issue resolution. InfCode iteratively refines both tests and patches through adversarial interaction between a Test Patch Generator and a Code Patch Generator, while a Selector agent identifies the most reliable fix. The framework runs inside a containerized environment that supports realistic repository inspection, modification, and validation. Experiments on SWE-bench Lite and SWE-bench Verified using models such as DeepSeek-V3 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet show that InfCode consistently outperforms strong baselines. It achieves 79.4% performance on SWE-bench Verified, establishing a new state-of-the-art. We have released InfCode as an open-source project at https://github.com/Tokfinity/InfCode.

We present QueryGym, a lightweight, extensible Python toolkit that supports large language model (LLM)-based query reformulation. This is an important tool development since recent work on llm-based query reformulation has shown notable increase in retrieval effectiveness. However, while different authors have sporadically shared the implementation of their methods, there is no unified toolkit that provides a consistent implementation of such methods, which hinders fair comparison, rapid experimentation, consistent benchmarking and reliable deployment. QueryGym addresses this gap by providing a unified framework for implementing, executing, and comparing llm-based reformulation methods. The toolkit offers: (1) a Python API for applying diverse LLM-based methods, (2) a retrieval-agnostic interface supporting integration with backends such as Pyserini and PyTerrier, (3) a centralized prompt management system with versioning and metadata tracking, (4) built-in support for benchmarks like BEIR and MS MARCO, and (5) a completely open-source extensible implementation available to all researchers. QueryGym is publicly available at https://github.com/radinhamidi/QueryGym.

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 Language Models (LLMs) can be backdoored to exhibit malicious behavior under specific deployment conditions while appearing safe during training a phenomenon known as "sleeper agents." Recent work by Hubinger et al. demonstrated that these backdoors persist through safety training, yet no practical detection methods exist. We present a novel dual-method detection system combining semantic drift analysis with canary baseline comparison to identify backdoored LLMs in real-time. Our approach uses Sentence-BERT embeddings to measure semantic deviation from safe baselines, complemented by injected canary questions that monitor response consistency. Evaluated on the official Cadenza-Labs dolphin-llama3-8B sleeper agent model, our system achieves 92.5% accuracy with 100% precision (zero false positives) and 85% recall. The combined detection method operates in real-time (<1s per query), requires no model modification, and provides the first practical solution to LLM backdoor detection. Our work addresses a critical security gap in AI deployment and demonstrates that embedding-based detection can effectively identify deceptive model behavior without sacrificing deployment efficiency.

In real-world task-oriented dialogue (TOD) settings, agents are required to strictly adhere to complex instructions while conducting multi-turn conversations with customers. These instructions are typically presented in natural language format and include general guidelines and step-by-step procedures with complex constraints. Existing TOD benchmarks often oversimplify the complex nature of these instructions by reducing them to simple schemas composed of intents, slots, and API call configurations. To address this gap and systematically benchmark LLMs' instruction-following capabilities, we propose TOD-ProcBench, a challenging benchmark featuring complex process instructions with intricate, fine-grained constraints that evaluates various LLMs' abilities to understand and follow instructions in multi-turn TODs. Our benchmark dataset comprises instruction documents derived from the high-quality ABCD dataset with corresponding conversations under human quality control. We formulate fine-grained constraints and action procedures as multi-level condition-action instruction statements. We design three tasks to comprehensively benchmark LLMs' complex instruction-following capabilities in multi-turn TODs. Task 1 evaluates how LLMs retrieve the most relevant statement from a complex instruction and predict the corresponding next action. In Task 2, we synthesize instruction-violating responses by injecting inconsistencies and manipulating the original instructions, and then we analyze how effectively LLMs can identify instruction-violating responses. Task 3 investigates LLMs' abilities in conditional generation of instruction-following responses based on the original complex instructions. Additionally, we conduct studies on the impact of multilingual settings and different instruction text formats on compliance performance. We release our benchmark under the Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.