The polarization of opinions, information segregation, and cognitive biases on social media have attracted significant academic attention. In real-world networks, information often spans multiple interrelated topics, posing challenges for opinion evolution and highlighting the need for frameworks that simulate interactions among topics. Existing studies based on large language models (LLMs) focus largely on single topics, limiting the capture of cognitive transfer in multi-topic, cross-domain contexts. Traditional numerical models, meanwhile, simplify complex linguistic attitudes into discrete values, lacking interpretability, behavioral consistency, and the ability to integrate multiple topics. To address these issues, we propose Multi-topic Opinion Simulation (MTOS), a social simulation framework integrating multi-topic contexts with LLMs. MTOS leverages LLMs alongside short-term and long-term memory, incorporates multiple user-selection interaction mechanisms and dynamic topic-selection strategies, and employs a belief decay mechanism to enable perspective updates across topics. We conduct extensive experiments on MTOS, varying topic numbers, correlation types, and performing ablation studies to assess features such as group polarization and local consistency. Results show that multi-topic settings significantly alter polarization trends: positively correlated topics amplify echo chambers, negatively correlated topics inhibit them, and irrelevant topics also mitigate echo chamber effects through resource competition. Compared with numerical models, LLM-based agents realistically simulate dynamic opinion changes, reproduce linguistic features of news texts, and capture complex human reasoning, improving simulation interpretability and system stability.

Self-improvement has emerged as a state-of-the-art paradigm in Neural Combinatorial Optimization (NCO), where models iteratively refine their policies by generating and imitating high-quality solutions. Despite strong empirical performance, existing methods face key limitations. Training is computationally expensive, as policy updates require sampling numerous candidate solutions per instance to extract a single expert trajectory. More fundamentally, these approaches fail to exploit the structure of combinatorial problems involving the coordination of multiple agents, such as vehicles in min-max routing or machines in scheduling. By supervising on single-action trajectories, they fail to exploit agent-permutation symmetries, where distinct sequences of actions yield identical solutions, hindering generalization and the ability to learn coordinated behavior. We address these challenges by extending self-improvement to operate over joint multi-agent actions. Our model architecture predicts complete agent-task assignments jointly at each decision step. To explicitly leverage symmetries, we employ a set-prediction loss, which supervises the policy on multiple expert assignments for any given state. This approach enhances sample efficiency and the model's ability to learn coordinated behavior. Furthermore, by generating multi-agent actions in parallel, it drastically accelerates the solution generation phase of the self-improvement loop. Empirically, we validate our method on several combinatorial problems, demonstrating consistent improvements in the quality of the final solution and a reduced generation latency compared to standard self-improvement.

Current macroeconomic models with agent heterogeneity can be broadly divided into two main groups. Heterogeneous-agent general equilibrium (GE) models, such as those based on Heterogeneous Agents New Keynesian (HANK) or Krusell-Smith (KS) approaches, rely on GE and 'rational expectations', somewhat unrealistic assumptions that make the models very computationally cumbersome, which in turn limits the amount of heterogeneity that can be modelled. In contrast, agent-based models (ABMs) can flexibly encompass a large number of arbitrarily heterogeneous agents, but typically require the specification of explicit behavioural rules, which can lead to a lengthy trial-and-error model-development process. To address these limitations, we introduce MARL-BC, a framework that integrates deep multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) with Real Business Cycle (RBC) models. We demonstrate that MARL-BC can: (1) recover textbook RBC results when using a single agent; (2) recover the results of the mean-field KS model using a large number of identical agents; and (3) effectively simulate rich heterogeneity among agents, a hard task for traditional GE approaches. Our framework can be thought of as an ABM if used with a variety of heterogeneous interacting agents, and can reproduce GE results in limit cases. As such, it is a step towards a synthesis of these often opposed modelling paradigms.

Web applications are prime targets for cyberattacks as gateways to critical services and sensitive data. Traditional penetration testing is costly and expertise-intensive, making it difficult to scale with the growing web ecosystem. While language model agents show promise in cybersecurity, modern web applications demand visual understanding, dynamic content handling, and multi-step interactions that only computer-use agents (CUAs) can perform. Yet, their ability to discover and exploit vulnerabilities through graphical interfaces remains largely unexplored. We present HackWorld, the first framework for systematically evaluating CUAs' capabilities to exploit web application vulnerabilities via visual interaction. Unlike sanitized benchmarks, HackWorld includes 36 real-world applications across 11 frameworks and 7 languages, featuring realistic flaws such as injection vulnerabilities, authentication bypasses, and unsafe input handling. Using a Capture-the-Flag (CTF) setup, it tests CUAs' capacity to identify and exploit these weaknesses while navigating complex web interfaces. Evaluation of state-of-the-art CUAs reveals concerning trends: exploitation rates below 12% and low cybersecurity awareness. CUAs often fail at multi-step attack planning and misuse security tools. These results expose the current limitations of CUAs in web security contexts and highlight opportunities for developing more security-aware agents capable of effective vulnerability detection and exploitation.

With the increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), parallel reasoning has emerged as a new inference paradigm that enhances reasoning robustness by concurrently exploring multiple lines of thought before converging on a final answer. It has become a significant trend to explore parallel reasoning to overcome the fragility of standard sequential methods and improve practical performance. In this paper, we aim to survey and summarize the progress and challenges of parallel reasoning. We first present a formal definition of parallel reasoning and clarify its distinction from related concepts like Chain-of-Thought. Then, we organize and discuss advanced techniques based on a novel taxonomy, including non-interactive reasoning, interactive reasoning, and efficiency-focused decoding strategies. Additionally, we explore various application scenarios, such as solving complex problems and enhancing the reliability of LLM outputs.Finally, we highlight the core challenges of parallel reasoning and suggest potential directions for future research. We hope that our work can provide a useful roadmap for beginners and encourage more research on improving parallel reasoning methods. Related source can be avaliable in https://github.com/PPPP-kaqiu/Awesome-Parallel-Reasoning.

We introduce ToPolyAgent, a multi-agent AI framework for performing coarse-grained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of topological polymers through natural language instructions. By integrating large language models (LLMs) with domain-specific computational tools, ToPolyAgent supports both interactive and autonomous simulation workflows across diverse polymer architectures, including linear, ring, brush, and star polymers, as well as dendrimers. The system consists of four LLM-powered agents: a Config Agent for generating initial polymer-solvent configurations, a Simulation Agent for executing LAMMPS-based MD simulations and conformational analyses, a Report Agent for compiling markdown reports, and a Workflow Agent for streamlined autonomous operations. Interactive mode incorporates user feedback loops for iterative refinements, while autonomous mode enables end-to-end task execution from detailed prompts. We demonstrate ToPolyAgent's versatility through case studies involving diverse polymer architectures under varying solvent condition, thermostats, and simulation lengths. Furthermore, we highlight its potential as a research assistant by directing it to investigate the effect of interaction parameters on the linear polymer conformation, and the influence of grafting density on the persistence length of the brush polymer. By coupling natural language interfaces with rigorous simulation tools, ToPolyAgent lowers barriers to complex computational workflows and advances AI-driven materials discovery in polymer science. It lays the foundation for autonomous and extensible multi-agent scientific research ecosystems.

AI reasoning agents are already able to solve a variety of tasks by deploying tools, simulating outcomes of multiple hypotheses and reflecting on them. In doing so, they perform computation, although not in the classical sense -- there is no program being executed. Still, if they perform computation, can AI agents be universal? Can chain-of-thought reasoning solve any computable task? How does an AI Agent learn to reason? Is it a matter of model size? Or training dataset size? In this work, we reinterpret the role of learning in the context of AI Agents, viewing them as compute-capable stochastic dynamical systems, and highlight the role of time in a foundational principle for learning to reason. In doing so, we propose a shift from classical inductive learning to transductive learning -- where the objective is not to approximate the distribution of past data, but to capture their algorithmic structure to reduce the time needed to find solutions to new tasks. Transductive learning suggests that, counter to Shannon's theory, a key role of information in learning is about reduction of time rather than reconstruction error. In particular, we show that the optimal speed-up that a universal solver can achieve using past data is tightly related to their algorithmic information. Using this, we show a theoretical derivation for the observed power-law scaling of inference time versus training time. We then show that scaling model size can lead to behaviors that, while improving accuracy on benchmarks, fail any reasonable test of intelligence, let alone super-intelligence: In the limit of infinite space and time, large models can behave as savants, able to brute-force through any task without any insight. Instead, we argue that the key quantity to optimize when scaling reasoning models is time, whose critical role in learning has so far only been indirectly considered.

Evaluating multi-turn interactive agents is challenging due to the need for human assessment. Evaluation with simulated users has been introduced as an alternative, however existing approaches typically model generic users and overlook the domain-specific principles required to capture realistic behavior. We propose SAGE, a novel user Simulation framework for multi-turn AGent Evaluation that integrates knowledge from business contexts. SAGE incorporates top-down knowledge rooted in business logic, such as ideal customer profiles, grounding user behavior in realistic customer personas. We further integrate bottom-up knowledge taken from business agent infrastructure (e.g., product catalogs, FAQs, and knowledge bases), allowing the simulator to generate interactions that reflect users' information needs and expectations in a company's target market. Through empirical evaluation, we find that this approach produces interactions that are more realistic and diverse, while also identifying up to 33% more agent errors, highlighting its effectiveness as an evaluation tool to support bug-finding and iterative agent improvement.

Variant and gene interpretation are fundamental to personalized medicine and translational biomedicine. However, traditional approaches are manual and labor-intensive. Generative language models (LMs) can facilitate this process, accelerating the translation of fundamental research into clinically-actionable insights. While existing benchmarks have attempted to quantify the capabilities of LMs for interpreting scientific data, these studies focus on narrow tasks that do not translate to real-world research. To meet these challenges, we introduce CGBench, a robust benchmark that tests reasoning capabilities of LMs on scientific publications. CGBench is built from ClinGen, a resource of expert-curated literature interpretations in clinical genetics. CGBench measures the ability to 1) extract relevant experimental results following precise protocols and guidelines, 2) judge the strength of evidence, and 3) categorize and describe the relevant outcome of experiments. We test 8 different LMs and find that while models show promise, substantial gaps exist in literature interpretation, especially on fine-grained instructions. Reasoning models excel in fine-grained tasks but non-reasoning models are better at high-level interpretations. Finally, we measure LM explanations against human explanations with an LM judge approach, revealing that models often hallucinate or misinterpret results even when correctly classifying evidence. CGBench reveals strengths and weaknesses of LMs for precise interpretation of scientific publications, opening avenues for future research in AI for clinical genetics and science more broadly.

AI agents have been developed for complex real-world tasks from coding to customer service. But AI agent evaluations suffer from many challenges that undermine our understanding of how well agents really work. We introduce the Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) to address these challenges. We make three main contributions. First, we provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of VMs, reducing evaluation time from weeks to hours while eliminating common implementation bugs. Second, we conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks. We validate the harness by conducting 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks in coding, web navigation, science, and customer service with a total cost of about $40,000. Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs. Third, we use LLM-aided log inspection to uncover previously unreported behaviors, such as searching for the benchmark on HuggingFace instead of solving a task, or misusing credit cards in flight booking tasks. We share all agent logs, comprising 2.5B tokens of language model calls, to incentivize further research into agent behavior. By standardizing how the field evaluates agents and addressing common pitfalls in agent evaluation, we hope to shift the focus from agents that ace benchmarks to agents that work reliably in the real world.