We utilize an open and widely used data format, i.e., JSON format, for the MEQA dataset. "context": "Roadside IED kills Russian major general [...]", # The context of the question "question": "Who died before AI-monitor reported it online?", "What event contains Al-Monitor is the communicator? "What event is after #1 has a victim? "Who died in the #2? major general,local commander,lieutenant general" We present a list of Datasheets [Gebru et al., 2021] for the MEQA dataset, synthesizing many of the For what purpose was the dataset created?

However, there's a lack of insight into how these models perform in terms

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved superior performance, empowering the development of large multimodal agents (LMAs).

To facilitate this procedure, we propose Natural Program, a natural language-based deductive reasoning format. Our approach enables models to generate precise reasoning steps where subsequent steps are more rigorously grounded on prior steps.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

The ability to perform Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning marks a major milestone for multimodal models (MMs), enabling them to solve complex visual reasoning problems. Y et a critical question remains: is such reasoning genuinely grounded in visual evidence and logically coherent? Existing benchmarks emphasize generation but neglect verification, i.e., the capacity to assess whether a reasoning chain is both visually consistent and logically valid. T o fill this gap, we introduce MM-CoT, a diagnostic benchmark specifically designed to probe the visual grounding and logical coherence of CoT reasoning in MMs. Instead of generating free-form explanations, models must select the sole event chain that satisfies two orthogonal constraints: (i) visual consistency, ensuring all steps are anchored in observable evidence, and (ii) logical coherence, ensuring causal and commonsense validity. Adversarial distractors are engineered to violate one of these constraints, exposing distinct reasoning failures. W e evaluate leading vision-language models on MM-CoT and find that even the most advanced systems struggle, i.e., revealing a sharp discrepancy between generative fluency and true reasoning fidelity. MM-CoT shows low correlation with existing benchmarks, confirming that it measures a unique combination of visual grounding and logical reasoning. This benchmark provides a foundation for developing future models that reason not just plausibly, but faithfully and coherently within the visual world.

Screening patients for clinical trial eligibility remains a manual, time - consuming, and resource-intensive process. W e present a secure, scalable proof-of - concept system for Artificial Intelligence ( AI)- augmented patient - trial matching that addresses key implementation challenges: integrating heterogeneous electronic health record (EHR) data, facilitating expert review, and maintaining rigorous security standards. Leveraging open-source, reasoning-enabled large language models (LLMs), the system moves beyond binary classification to generate structured eligibility assessments with interpretable reasoning chains that support human-in - the - loop review. This decision support tool represents eligibility as a dynamic state rather than a fixed determination, identifying matches whe n available and offering actionable recommendations that could render a patient eligible in the future . The system aims to reduce coordinator burden, intelligently broaden the set of trials considered for each patient and guarantee comprehensive auditability of all AI - generated outputs. Introduction Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare are increasingly focused on improving administrative efficiency and optimizing clinical workflows . Identifying relevant trials and screening them for a particular patient is traditionally manual, time - consuming, and heavily reliant on clinical expertise.

Reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving across various domains, yet their capabilities in handling complex legal problems remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Unilaw-R1, a large language model tailored for legal reasoning. With a lightweight 7-billion parameter scale, Unilaw-R1 significantly reduces deployment cost while effectively tackling three core challenges in the legal domain: insufficient legal knowledge, unreliable reasoning logic, and weak business generalization. To address these issues, we first construct Unilaw-R1-Data, a high-quality dataset containing 17K distilled and screened chain-of-thought (CoT) samples. Based on this, we adopt a two-stage training strategy combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), which significantly boosts the performance on complex legal reasoning tasks and supports interpretable decision-making in legal AI applications. To assess legal reasoning ability, we also introduce Unilaw-R1-Eval, a dedicated benchmark designed to evaluate models across single- and multi-choice legal tasks. Unilaw-R1 demonstrates strong results on authoritative benchmarks, outperforming all models of similar scale and achieving performance on par with the much larger DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (54.9%). Following domain-specific training, it also showed significant gains on LawBench and LexEval, exceeding Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct (46.6%) by an average margin of 6.6%.

Medical question answering requires advanced reasoning that integrates domain knowledge with logical inference. However, existing large language models (LLMs) often generate reasoning chains that lack factual accuracy and clinical reliability. We propose Ranked Preference Reinforcement Optimization (RPRO), a novel framework that combines reinforcement learning with preference-driven reasoning refinement to enhance clinical chain-of-thought (CoT) performance. RPRO distinguishes itself from prior approaches by employing task-adaptive reasoning templates and a probabilistic evaluation mechanism that aligns model outputs with established clinical workflows, while automatically identifying and correcting low-quality reasoning chains. Unlike traditional pairwise preference methods, RPRO introduces a groupwise ranking optimization based on the Bradley--Terry model and incorporates KL-divergence regularization for stable training. Experiments on PubMedQA, MedQA-USMLE, and a real-world clinical dataset from Far Eastern Memorial Hospital (FEMH) demonstrate consistent improvements over strong baselines. Remarkably, our 2B-parameter model outperforms much larger 7B--20B models, including medical-specialized variants. These findings demonstrate that combining preference optimization with quality-driven refinement provides a scalable and clinically grounded approach to building more reliable medical LLMs.