Large language models excel at abstract reasoning but their capacity for embodied agent reasoning remains largely unexplored. We present OmniEAR, a comprehensive framework for evaluating how language models reason about physical interactions, tool usage, and multi-agent coordination in embodied tasks. Unlike existing benchmarks that provide predefined tool sets or explicit collaboration directives, OmniEAR requires agents to dynamically acquire capabilities and autonomously determine coordination strategies based on task demands. Through text-based environment representation, we model continuous physical properties and complex spatial relationships across 1,500 scenarios spanning household and industrial domains. Our systematic evaluation reveals severe performance degradation when models must reason from constraints: while achieving 85-96% success with explicit instructions, performance drops to 56-85% for tool reasoning and 63-85% for implicit collaboration, with compound tasks showing over 50% failure rates. Surprisingly, complete environmental information degrades coordination performance, indicating models cannot filter task-relevant constraints. Fine-tuning improves single-agent tasks dramatically (0.6% to 76.3%) but yields minimal multi-agent gains (1.5% to 5.5%), exposing fundamental architectural limitations. These findings demonstrate that embodied reasoning poses fundamentally different challenges than current models can address, establishing OmniEAR as a rigorous benchmark for evaluating and advancing embodied AI systems. Our code and data are included in the supplementary materials and will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

Effective robotic systems for long-horizon human-robot collaboration must adapt to a wide range of human partners, whose physical behavior, willingness to assist, and understanding of the robot's capabilities may change over time. This demands a tightly coupled communication loop that grants both agents the flexibility to propose, accept, or decline requests as they coordinate toward completing the task effectively. We apply a Mixed-Initiative dialog paradigm to Collaborative human-roBot teaming and propose MICoBot, a system that handles the common scenario where both agents, using natural language, take initiative in formulating, accepting, or rejecting proposals on who can best complete different steps of a task. To handle diverse, task-directed dialog, and find successful collaborative strategies that minimize human effort, MICoBot makes decisions at three levels: (1) a meta-planner considers human dialog to formulate and code a high-level collaboration strategy, (2) a planner optimally allocates the remaining steps to either agent based on the robot's capabilities (measured by a simulation-pretrained affordance model) and the human's estimated availability to help, and (3) an action executor decides the low-level actions to perform or words to say to the human. Our extensive evaluations in simulation and real-world -- on a physical robot with 18 unique human participants over 27 hours -- demonstrate the ability of our method to effectively collaborate with diverse human users, yielding significantly improved task success and user experience than a pure LLM baseline and other agent allocation models. See additional videos and materials at https://robin-lab.cs.utexas.edu/MicoBot/.

Multimodal electronic health record (EHR) data provide richer, complementary insights into patient health compared to single-modality data. However, effectively integrating diverse data modalities for clinical prediction modeling remains challenging due to the substantial data requirements. We introduce a novel architecture, Mixture-of-Multimodal-Agents (MoMA), designed to leverage multiple large language model (LLM) agents for clinical prediction tasks using multimodal EHR data. MoMA employs specialized LLM agents ("specialist agents") to convert non-textual modalities, such as medical images and laboratory results, into structured textual summaries. These summaries, together with clinical notes, are combined by another LLM ("aggregator agent") to generate a unified multimodal summary, which is then used by a third LLM ("predictor agent") to produce clinical predictions. Evaluating MoMA on three prediction tasks using real-world datasets with different modality combinations and prediction settings, MoMA outperforms current state-of-the-art methods, highlighting its enhanced accuracy and flexibility across various tasks.

Large language models (LLM) exhibit broad utility but face limitations in quantum sensor development, stemming from interdisciplinary knowledge barriers and involving complex optimization processes. Here we present QCopilot, an LLM-based multi-agent framework integrating external knowledge access, active learning, and uncertainty quantification for quantum sensor design and diagnosis. Comprising commercial LLMs with few-shot prompt engineering and vector knowledge base, QCopilot employs specialized agents to adaptively select optimization methods, automate modeling analysis, and independently perform problem diagnosis. Applying QCopilot to atom cooling experiments, we generated 10${}^{\rm{8}}$ sub-$\rmμ$K atoms without any human intervention within a few hours, representing $\sim$100$\times$ speedup over manual experimentation. Notably, by continuously accumulating prior knowledge and enabling dynamic modeling, QCopilot can autonomously identify anomalous parameters in multi-parameter experimental settings. Our work reduces barriers to large-scale quantum sensor deployment and readily extends to other quantum information systems.

The term 'agent' in artificial intelligence has long carried multiple interpretations across different subfields. Recent developments in AI capabilities, particularly in large language model systems, have amplified this ambiguity, creating significant challenges in research communication, system evaluation and reproducibility, and policy development. This paper argues that the term 'agent' requires redefinition. Drawing from historical analysis and contemporary usage patterns, we propose a framework that defines clear minimum requirements for a system to be considered an agent while characterizing systems along a multidimensional spectrum of environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal complexity, and temporal coherence. This approach provides precise vocabulary for system description while preserving the term's historically multifaceted nature. After examining potential counterarguments and implementation challenges, we provide specific recommendations for moving forward as a field, including suggestions for terminology standardization and framework adoption. The proposed approach offers practical tools for improving research clarity and reproducibility while supporting more effective policy development.

Web navigation represents a critical and challenging domain for evaluating artificial general intelligence (AGI), demanding complex decision-making within high-entropy, dynamic environments with combinatorially explosive action spaces. Current approaches to building autonomous web agents either focus on offline imitation learning or online exploration, but rarely integrate both paradigms effectively. Inspired by the dual-process theory of human cognition, we derive a principled decomposition into fast System 1 and slow System 2 cognitive processes. This decomposition provides a unifying perspective on existing web agent methodologies, bridging the gap between offline learning of intuitive reactive behaviors and online acquisition of deliberative planning capabilities. We implement this framework in CogniWeb, a modular agent architecture that adaptively toggles between fast intuitive processing and deliberate reasoning based on task complexity. Our evaluation on WebArena demonstrates that CogniWeb achieves competitive performance (43.96% success rate) while maintaining significantly higher efficiency (75% reduction in token usage).

Existing unstructured data analytics systems rely on experts to write code and manage complex analysis workflows, making them both expensive and time-consuming. To address these challenges, we introduce AgenticData, an innovative agentic data analytics system that allows users to simply pose natural language (NL) questions while autonomously analyzing data sources across multiple domains, including both unstructured and structured data. First, AgenticData employs a feedback-driven planning technique that automatically converts an NL query into a semantic plan composed of relational and semantic operators. We propose a multi-agent collaboration strategy by utilizing a data profiling agent for discovering relevant data, a semantic cross-validation agent for iterative optimization based on feedback, and a smart memory agent for maintaining short-term context and long-term knowledge. Second, we propose a semantic optimization model to refine and execute semantic plans effectively. Our system, AgenticData, has been tested using three benchmarks. Experimental results showed that AgenticData achieved superior accuracy on both easy and difficult tasks, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in autonomous decision-making roles across high-stakes domains. However, since models are trained on human-generated data, they may inherit cognitive biases that systematically distort human judgment, including escalation of commitment, where decision-makers continue investing in failing courses of action due to prior investment. Understanding when LLMs exhibit such biases presents a unique challenge. While these biases are well-documented in humans, it remains unclear whether they manifest consistently in LLMs or require specific triggering conditions. This paper investigates this question using a two-stage investment task across four experimental conditions: model as investor, model as advisor, multi-agent deliberation, and compound pressure scenario. Across N = 6,500 trials, we find that bias manifestation in LLMs is highly context-dependent. In individual decision-making contexts (Studies 1-2, N = 4,000), LLMs demonstrate strong rational cost-benefit logic with minimal escalation of commitment. However, multi-agent deliberation reveals a striking hierarchy effect (Study 3, N = 500): while asymmetrical hierarchies show moderate escalation rates (46.2%), symmetrical peer-based decision-making produces near-universal escalation (99.2%). Similarly, when subjected to compound organizational and personal pressures (Study 4, N = 2,000), models exhibit high degrees of escalation of commitment (68.95% average allocation to failing divisions). These findings reveal that LLM bias manifestation depends critically on social and organizational context rather than being inherent, with significant implications for the deployment of multi-agent systems and unsupervised operations where such conditions may emerge naturally.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents is significantly hampered by the profound limitations of existing evaluation benchmarks in terms of accuracy, reproducibility, and scalability. To address this critical gap, we introduce NaturalGAIA, a novel benchmark engineered on the principle of Causal Pathways. This design paradigm structures complex tasks into a series of programmatically verifiable atomic steps, ensuring a rigorous, fully automated, and reproducible standard for assessment. Concurrently, to mitigate the inherent capability deficits of agents, we developed LightManus, a hierarchical agent architecture specifically optimized for long-horizon tasks. We leveraged this agent to generate a high-quality, human-verified trajectory dataset that uniquely captures diverse and even self-correcting interaction patterns of LLMs. We then utilized this dataset to perform Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) on the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model. Our experiments reveal that NaturalGAIA presents a formidable challenge to current state-of-the-art LLMs; even the top-performing Claude-sonnet-4 achieved a Weighted Pathway Success Rate (WPSR) of only 34.6%. Moreover, while RFT substantially improved the smaller model's GUI execution capabilities (WPSR increased from 3.3% to 10.8%), its performance degraded sharply when handling complex scenarios. This outcome highlights the inherent capability ceiling of smaller models when faced with comprehensive tasks that integrate perception, decision-making, and execution. This research contributes a rigorous evaluation standard and a high-quality dataset to the community, aiming to guide the future development of GUI agents.

The ongoing evolution of AI paradigms has propelled AI research into the agentic AI stage. Consequently, the focus of research has shifted from single agents and simple applications towards multi-agent autonomous decision-making and task collaboration in complex environments. As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance, their applications become more diverse and complex, leading to increasing situational and systemic risks. This has brought significant attention to value alignment for agentic AI systems, which aims to ensure that an agent's goals, preferences, and behaviors align with human values and societal norms. Addressing socio-governance demands through a Multi-level Value framework, this study comprehensively reviews value alignment in LLM-based multi-agent systems as the representative archetype of agentic AI systems. Our survey systematically examines three interconnected dimensions: First, value principles are structured via a top-down hierarchy across macro, meso, and micro levels. Second, application scenarios are categorized along a general-to-specific continuum explicitly mirroring these value tiers. Third, value alignment methods and evaluation are mapped to this tiered framework through systematic examination of benchmarking datasets and relevant methodologies. Additionally, we delve into value coordination among multiple agents within agentic AI systems. Finally, we propose several potential research directions in this field.