每天知道
你的领域
出了什么

LLM agents have made rapid progress on software engineering and ML research tasks, but these advances often assume access to a working runnable environment. For research artifacts released alongside published papers, setting up such an environment from a fresh machine remains a major bottleneck. Existing environment setup benchmarks do not cover the full scope of research artifact deployment, which involves multi-language toolchains, system-level dependencies beyond containers (e.g. GPU/CUDA and kernel configurations), and legacy artifact compatibility. We introduce DeployBench, a multi-domain benchmark of 51 research-artifact deployment tasks spanning AI/ML, computer systems, and scientific computing, covering all these dimensions. Each task is verified by a hidden pipeline that executes the paper's designated experiment and checks its outputs. Evaluating four state-of-the-art LLMs with OpenHands yields pass-rates from 7.8% - 51.0% . Failures are dominated by a completion-judgment problem: 97 of 154 are agent-terminated self-stops, where the agent's pre-finish checks validate a different or weaker target than the paper-specific task requires. DeployBench highlights the gap between current agents and autonomous deployment, and offers a realistic testbed for scientific research agents.

Long-horizon conversational agents need to interact with users through evolving events, tasks, and goals. Such histories are naturally temporal, yet many existing memory systems organize information primarily by topical similarity and may ignore the order in which events occur. We introduce Segment Tree Memory, or SegTreeMem, a memory architecture that represents conversation history as a temporally ordered Segment Tree over utterances. SegTreeMem incrementally inserts new utterances through an online rightmost-frontier update rule, preserving chronological order while forming hierarchical memory segments. For retrieval, SegTreeMem propagates relevance scores through the tree to combine local semantic matching with hierarchical temporal context. Across three long-horizon memory benchmarks and two LLM backbones, SegTreeMem improves answer quality over flat retrieval, graph-structured memory, and tree-structured memory baselines. Additional temporal-order permutation analysis shows that the performance gain depends on preserving temporal order during memory construction, supporting the claim that temporal order is a key structure for agentic memory.

As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products — yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes. We address each. A large-scale empirical study on Harvey LAB — $12{,}510$ agent trajectories — shows that even frontier agents remain far from completing matters in a single pass: per-criterion accuracy climbs with stronger models while strict matter completion stalls. We then introduce \textsc{Parthenon}, a self-evolving legal-agent framework that factors Model, Harness, Agent roles, legal Knowledge, deterministic Tools, and procedural Skills into auditable surfaces for source traceability, date and number grounding, deliverable compliance, and issue closure. Finally, an anti-leakage learning loop converts scored failures into task-agnostic edits to skills, tools, and knowledge, letting the system improve with experience — as a firm refines its checklists and playbooks after each matter — without touching model weights. Across our large-scale empirical analysis, \textsc{Parthenon} substantially improves the performance of state-of-the-art models and harnesses on legal-matter tasks.

Complementarity is the case in which a human--AI interaction (HAI) outperforms the best prediction benchmark available among its members. Although this idea is central in HAI research, formal work on complementarity remains limited. Existing frameworks do not model how agents' predictions compose into workflow-sensitive multi-agent protocols. We close this gap by introducing a tree-based formalization of complementarity in multi-agent HAI. An HAI protocol is represented by an ordered agent-role configuration together with a rooted planar binary tree whose leaves are decorated by prediction vectors. A local binary composition rule is evaluated recursively along the tree, yielding a tree-relative complementarity functional relative to a pointwise-min oracle benchmark. We prove four results. First, selector-based HAIs, including self- or AI-reliance, cannot achieve complementarity regardless of task, loss, or prediction quality. Second, in regression under squared loss, complementarity is equivalent to Euclidean distance minimization from the ground-truth vector; for $N=2$, the optimal linear-pooling weight has a closed form and a residual-correction interpretation. Third, under linear local composition, every protocol tree defines a barycentric coordinate chart on the simplex of leaf weights; Tamari-cover reparameterizations of protocol trees preserve complementarity, and for $N=4$, they satisfy the pentagon identity. Fourth, in binary classification, no internal local composition can achieve complementarity under endpoint-monotone losses, including standard Bregman and many finite Bernoulli $f$-divergence losses; an analogous obstruction holds for multiclass aggregation under cross-entropy. In summary, our framework shows that complementarity is attainable in multi-agent regression, but obstructed in classification under natural conditions on local aggregation and loss functions.

Memory is a core component of AI agents, enabling them to accumulate knowledge across interactions and improve performance. However, persistent memory introduces the risk of memory poisoning, where a single adversarial memory write can exert long-term influence over agent behavior. We present a systematic study of memory poisoning in LLM-based agents. We identify four memory write channels and nine structural vulnerabilities in model capabilities, system prompt design, and agent system architecture that make these channels exploitable. Based on these vulnerabilities, we develop a taxonomy of six classes of memory poisoning attacks. Furthermore, we design MPBench — a benchmark for evaluating memory poisoning attacks, and show that agents designed to write and retrieve memory more aggressively are more exploitable. We also show that existing prompt injection defenses fail to cover memory poisoning attacks. Our findings provide a foundation for understanding and mitigating memory poisoning attacks against AI agents.

We introduce the LLM agent architecture Agentic Redux, intended for use with nontrivial problem domains that require linear auditability. Using the typed lambda calculus, we prove that, run on appropriate domains, Agentic Redux executions are semantically guaranteed to be correct, with all decisions recorded in an append-only ledger. We present two production-grade appropriate domains, in healthcare billing compliance, and security vulnerability disclosure. Working code for Agentic Redux run on both domains is available in a supporting code repository. We also introduce Ontology-First Agent Design, a methodology for creation of agent frameworks on a problem domain, in which a human expert ontologizes the problem domain with Basic Formal Ontology, and then assigns an LLM to derive roles that agents and humans-in-the-loop can fill, in order to work the problems in the domain.

We study the personal camera roll visual question answering setting. In this setting, a conversational AI assistant can access a user's personal camera roll and retrieve relevant photos to answer queries, ranging from simple factual questions (e.g., ``Name of the food I tried yesterday?'') to more open-ended ones (e.g., ``Recommend some dishes I have never eaten before''). Given the vast nature of the personal camera roll (i.e., multiple years, hundreds to thousands of photos), a successful AI assistant needs to understand a long-horizon, highly personalized visual content stream in order to navigate and locate the correct and/or relevant information. To support this, we collect and manually annotate questions that mimic real-world usage. The final dataset, camroll, contains 50 users, 31,476 images, and 2,500 QA pairs. We further design camroll-agent, a conversational AI agent equipped with hierarchical memory and a minimal set of tools for efficient navigation over large, personalized visual memory. Experimental results show that camroll-agent outperforms numerous baselines and methods for long-context understanding AI agents system. Together, the camroll dataset and camroll-agent highlight the gap in AI agents' long-context reasoning: personalized visual memory requires different approaches from standard long-context textual memory, especially when consistency, visual details, and user-specific context are present.

System prompt optimization improves agent behavior without modifying the underlying model, yielding human-readable, model-agnostic instructions. Existing methods build a prompt agent that refines task agents' system prompts, yet leave the prompt agent's own system prompt hand-engineered and fixed. We propose Self-Evolving Prompt Optimization (SePO), which treats the prompt agent's own system prompt as an optimization target alongside task agents' system prompts. SePO adopts a self-referential design. A single prompt agent improves both task agents' system prompts and its own under an open-ended evolutionary search that maintains an archive of candidate prompts as stepping stones. Training proceeds in two stages: pre-training evolves the prompt agent on a multi-task pool, and fine-tuning then applies it to a target task. Across five benchmarks spanning math (AIME'25), abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI-1), graduate-level science (GPQA), code generation (MBPP), and logic puzzles (Sudoku), SePO consistently outperforms Manual-CoT, TextGrad, and MetaSPO, improving the average accuracy by 4.49 points compared to Manual-CoT. The prompt optimization skill from pre-training also generalizes to tasks beyond the pre-training mixture, rather than memorizing per-task prompts.

Existing memory-augmented LLM agents store past experience exclusively in prompt space, as textual summaries or retrieved passages, while keeping model parameters frozen throughout a rollout. Such agents can look up what they have seen but cannot learn from it: their policy is unchanged by experience, and any information dropped from the context is permanently lost. We introduce TMEM, a self-evolving parametric memory framework in which the agent not only compresses history into explicit memory but also absorbs distilled supervision into fast LoRA weights $Δ_t$ via lightweight online updates, genuinely altering its future behavior within a single episode. We formalize this as an agentic decision process with fast-weight rollout dynamics: actions are sampled from $π_{θ_0+Δ_t}$, while extraction actions produce supervision that updates $Δ_t$ for subsequent decisions. This view makes the extraction policy directly optimizable by RL: training $θ_0$ improves not only task actions but also the quality of the data used for online LoRA adaptation. We further propose SVD-based initialization of the LoRA subspace to accelerate online convergence. Experiments on LoCoMo, LongMemEval-S, multi-objective search, and CL-Bench show that TMEM consistently outperforms summary-based and retrieval-based baselines across different model scales.

Persistent LLM agents require memory representations that make the formation of person understanding explicit across long term interaction. Existing agent memory methods emphasize information retention and retrieval, yet give limited account of how accumulated interaction evidence is abstracted into person understanding. We view this process as schema formation, where situated evidence is abstracted into reusable patterns and stable person level claims. We introduce PersonaTree, a structured lifecycle memory framework that realizes this view as a three level persona tree with explicit support paths from evidence to claims. PersonaTree maintains the tree through conservative writing, confidence guided consolidation, and query conditioned path retrieval, returning only the evidence depth required by each query. Across six person understanding and persistent memory benchmarks with three answer backbones, PersonaTree ranks first in 12 of 18 compact scores and reaches the top two in 16 settings. Ablations show that hierarchy improves abstract person understanding on KnowMe, while support path retrieval improves RealPref alignment under a comparable context budget.

Multi-agent reasoning systems adopt a "generate-then-transfer" paradigm that forces end-to-end latency to scale linearly with pipeline depth. We introduce StreamMA, a multi-agent reasoning system that streams each reasoning step to downstream agents as soon as it is generated, pipelining adjacent agents and thus reducing latency. Surprisingly, this pipelining also improves effectiveness: because multi-step reasoning quality is non-uniform and early steps are more reliable than later ones, working with these reliable early steps instead of the full chain prevents error-prone late steps from misleading downstream agents. We formalize both advantages with the first closed-form joint analysis of stream, serial, and single protocols, deriving the effectiveness ordering, speedup upper bound, and cost ratio. Across eight reasoning benchmarks spanning mathematics, science, and code, two frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4), and three topologies (Chain, Tree, Graph), StreamMA outperforms both baselines (avg. +7.3 pp, max +22.4 pp on HMMT 2026; Claude Opus 4.6-high). Beyond these contributions, we discover a "step-level scaling law": increasing per-agent steps consistently improves both effectiveness and efficiency, a new scaling dimension orthogonal to and composable with agent-count scaling.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks. Existing process rewards are mostly correlational: they reward retrieval-, reflection-, or verification-like steps without estimating whether the step contributes to final verified success under a specified intervention. We propose CVT-RL, a constrained policy-gradient algorithm with dense verifiable rewards, intervention-validity gating, and a policy-conditioned counterfactual contribution (PCCC) estimator. Deletion, semantic substitution, evidence substitution, and tool-output perturbation define separate controlled interventions; continuations are sampled from a frozen reference policy, and a selection-adjusted doubly robust estimator augments the advantage. Belief control uses only prefix-observable labels, while an augmented Lagrangian constrains unsupported claims, skipped verification, tool tampering, and unsafe calls. On long-context QA, ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, and web/tool tasks, CVT-RL improves average task success from 71.8% for compute-matched non-causal RL and 75.4% for an information-matched counterfactual-process baseline to 78.9%, improves evidence F1 from 78.9 to 82.8 over the information-matched baseline, and reduces measured hacking from 7.2% to 3.9%. Independent human audit estimates 4.6% hacking for CVT-RL versus 8.1% for the information-matched baseline, and adaptive detector-evasion attacks raise hacking only to 7.1%. Stratified bootstrap and mixed-effects tests give p<0.01 after Holm correction for all primary metrics. Carefully scoped counterfactual credit, paired with validity gating, diagnostics, and verifiable constraints, provides a reproducible route toward more reliable long-horizon RL for language agents.

LLM agents operate in two distinct regimes: open-weight agents amenable to reinforcement learning (RL) and black-box agents whose behaviour must be controlled purely at test time. Although black-box agents are often backed by state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs, API-only access precludes parameter-level optimization, rendering most RL methods inapplicable. To address this limitation, we turn to a known equivalence between RL and Bayesian inference. We propose Agentic Monte Carlo (AMC) to directly sample from the optimal policy of a black-box agent rather than training it through RL. The optimal policy is a posterior over trajectories whose prior we define as the fixed black-box LLM agent. We employ Sequential Monte Carlo to sample from this posterior by learning a value function to steer the agent while leaving the underlying black-box model unchanged. We validate AMC on three diverse environments from the AgentGym benchmark, demonstrating significant improvements over prompting baselines and even outperforming Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) as we scale the test-time compute of our method. AMC demonstrates the feasibility of performing principled RL-style optimization of black-box LLM agents. Code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/Agentic-Monte-Carlo

Epidemic LLM forecasters are usually trained and evaluated as static supervised models, whereas operational pandemic forecasting is a streaming process in which labels arrive after predictions and disease regimes shift over time. We study this mismatch in weekly COVID-19 hospitalization trend forecasting across five variant regimes. We introduce EpiEvolve, a self-evolving agent that wraps an LLM forecaster trained on the warm-start period and keeps its weights fixed during streaming. EpiEvolve adapts by storing forecast outcomes in a hierarchical episodic memory, reflecting on delayed labels, retrieving cases relevant to the current regime, and distilling recurring errors into strategic rules. The resulting context lets the forecaster reuse its own past predictions and outcomes in later weeks while following a chronological protocol that prevents future leakage. On the streaming dataset, EpiEvolve reaches $0.629$ average accuracy, compared with $0.561$ for the static backbone and $0.325$ for the external CDC ensemble, and reduces recovery lag after regime shifts from $5$ to $2$ weeks. Ablations show that reflection, strategic memory, and regime-aware retrieval each contribute to the gains.

Zero-shot information extraction (IE) with large language models (LLMs) has attracted increasing attention due to its flexibility in adapting to new schemas and domains without task-specific training. Existing approaches mainly rely on monolithic prompting, each-type prompting, or multi-agent debate. However, monolithic prompting often suffers from boundary and type errors, while each-type prompting and multi-agent debate introduce cross-type conflicts, redundant agent interactions, and substantial token overhead. To address these challenges, we propose SMADE-IE, a sparse and evidence-driven multi-agent framework for zero-shot IE. SMADE-IE first employs an Adaptive Mode Selector to dynamically route inputs into either a lightweight Global Extraction Mode or a Type-Centric Extraction Mode, reducing unnecessary type selection and reasoning noise. For conflicting predictions, we further introduce an Evidence-Driven Debate mechanism that structures arguments into Toulmin-style components and performs confidence aggregation through external evidence scoring and Bayesian updates. Experimental results on 9 benchmark datasets across NER, RE, and JERE tasks show that SMADE-IE consistently outperforms existing zero-shot IE baselines while also improving token efficiency through sparse agent selection and early-stopping debate.

AI tools for programming are no longer just autocomplete or chat assistants: they organize themselves as development frameworks, with process, roles, artifacts and verification. Recent surveys map agents and LLMs for software engineering, but a study centered on the operational frameworks that turn these capabilities into process is missing. We ran a directed search of primary sources, with a functional inclusion criterion and traction measurement, and selected six frameworks: GitHub Spec Kit, OpenSpec, BMAD Method, Get Shit Done (GSD), Spec Kitty and Reversa. Each attacks AI development through a different path: spec-driven development in full and lightweight variants, agent-driven agile planning, context engineering over the agent, worktree isolation and review, and recovery of operational specifications from legacy systems. Our central contribution is a six-dimension process taxonomy: specification, context, roles, execution, validation and portability, with a scoring rubric that turns it into a replicable instrument. We apply it to the six frameworks and an out-of-sample case, Spec-Flow. Two results stand out. Among frameworks that already adopt some process there is convergence: the isolated prompt loses centrality, and persistent artifacts, work contracts, traceability and human review become mechanisms that reduce ambiguity and coordinate agents. And no framework strongly covers all six dimensions, exposing a structural trade-off between process depth and portability across agents. We also found recurring risks: drift between specification and code, excessive trust in generated artifacts, fragility of community extensions, platform dependence and a lack of benchmarks for the complete process. We close with a research agenda for empirical evaluation, focused on intermediate-quality metrics, context governance, installation security and reproducibility.

Autonomous software agents hold promise to increase developer productivity but make mistakes and exhibit novel failure modes, making human oversight central to successful human-agent collaboration. Existing research on agent oversight is largely conceptual; normative frameworks exist, but how users actually oversee agents is less known. In this paper, we bridge this gap by providing early empirical anchors for the theoretical discourse on agent oversight. Drawing on interviews with 17 experienced developers, we conduct an exploratory inquiry examining what forms of emergent oversight work developers perform, when, and how. We also document the oversight challenges developers face and the strategies they have started using to address them. We found at least four forms of emergent oversight work: a priori control, co-planning, real-time monitoring, and post hoc review. We show that oversight work is not only reactive and retrospective, as portrayed in existing research, but also preventative and proactive. We describe situated oversight challenges (e.g., difficulty reviewing agent-generated code) and outline heuristics developers adopt to address such challenges (e.g., using test results as guarantees for code correctness). We conclude with high-level takeaways, future research directions, implications for the human-centered design of software agents and for software engineering practice, and limitations of our research.

Recent advances in generative image editing have improved the realism and controllability of localized image manipulation, raising new challenges for image manipulation detection and localization (IMDL). However, existing IMDL benchmarks still have limitations in visual realism, manipulation diversity, and generator coverage, making it difficult to reflect recent trends in image manipulation. To address these limitations, we introduce Impostor, a high-quality AI-edited image manipulation localization dataset containing 100K manipulated images. Impostor is constructed by CraftAgent, a closed-loop agent framework that integrates scene perception, editing planning, manipulation execution, quality validation, and iterative reflection to automatically generate diverse and visually realistic manipulated images. Moreover, Impostor contains images generated by seven recent AIGC models across three manipulation types and includes multiple manipulated regions, providing a more comprehensive benchmark for AIGC-based IMDL. Furthermore, we propose PhaseAware-Net (PANet), a semantic-forensic framework that introduces local phase modeling and semantic-forensic consistency learning to better localize semantically plausible yet forensically disrupted manipulated regions. Extensive experiments show that Impostor poses significant challenges to existing large vision-language models (LVLMs) and specialized IMDL methods, while PANet achieves superior performance on Impostor and multiple public benchmarks.

When an AI agent calls an API and hits a validation error, it needs more than what went wrong — it needs what to do next. A self-reflective API returns, on validation failure, a machine-readable recovery_feedback.suggestions[] payload sufficient for the agent to repair the request and retry without external reasoning. On a leak-audited pilot ($N{=}30$ per cell, 3 LLMs, 10 adversarial tasks), structured suggestions lift task-completion rate by $+36.7$--$40.0$pp over plain-English diagnoses on Anthropic models (Fisher's exact $p \le 0.0022$), at $1.8$--$2.2\times$ better per-success token efficiency. The lift is not significant on gpt-4o-mini ($p{=}0.435$); a second-domain replication on a billing API confirms the pattern. The comparison only holds after auditing two undocumented classes of answer leakage in LLM benchmarks. We shipaudit_prompt_leakage.py as reusable CI infrastructure. Code and data: https://github.com/arquicanedo/self-reflective-apis.

Public benchmarks enable fair and reproducible evaluation of LLM reasoning, but they become fragile for deep research agents that actively search the web during inference. Such agents may retrieve public benchmark metadata, question context, or even ground-truth answers via web search. This gives rise to Search-Time Contamination (STC), where external retrieval bypasses intended reasoning and inflates measured performance. We systematically study STC in deep research agent evaluation. We define three contamination types with increasing severity, namely Benchmark Metadata Leakage, Question-Context Leakage, and Explicit Answer Leakage, and develop detection algorithms to identify them and quantify their impact on agent performance. Evaluating modern deep research agents on six public benchmarks, we find that STC is widespread and can inflate performance by up to 4%. Our findings show that existing evaluations may overestimate true reasoning ability. We therefore advocate contamination-aware practices, including isolated sandboxes, transparent search trajectories, and controlled benchmark access.

Early failure alerting requires deciding, while a dialog or agent trajectory is still unfolding, whether to flag it as likely to fail. This is challenging because supervision is typically available only as a trajectory-level success/failure label while alerts must be raised from partial interactions. Prior early-classification methods often bridge this gap by assigning the terminal label to every prefix, treating every turn as failure evidence. We hypothesize that this prefix-label assumption is poorly matched to multi-turn language interactions, where evidence of eventual failure is sparse and often delayed. In this paper, we introduce a two-stage approach that learns from this sparse evidence structure and uses the resulting risk estimates for controllable early alerting. Specifically, our attention-based failure predictor learns sparse turn-level failure evidence from trajectory labels and uses it to estimate failure risk from partial histories. We then pair this predictor with $α$-STOP, a single preference-conditioned stopping policy that selects an accuracy-earliness operating point at inference time rather than training a separate trigger for each preference. Across five benchmarks spanning customer support, task-oriented dialog, persuasion, tool use, and planning, we first show that high-relevance failure evidence occupies only 4.7-11.3% of turns and first appears after 59.0-83.6% of trajectories on average. We further show that the attention-based predictor improves Pareto-frontier quality (hypervolume) by 1-10% over naive prefix supervision, and that the full system improves frontier quality by 3-42% over state-of-the-art trigger policies while reducing training cost per operating point by 1-3 orders of magnitude.

When networked system failures occur, automatically performing Root Cause Analysis (RCA) using observability data is critical for ensuring networked system reliability. Recently, LLM-based agents have shown promise for automating this diagnosis process through advanced reasoning and autonomous exploration. However, existing observability frameworks remain archaic, characterized by fragmented data silos, incompatible schemas, and insufficient semantic metadata, preventing agents from establishing the complex relationships required for effective RCA. To address these challenges, we present UModel, a unified ontological framework that shifts observability from data-centric to object-centric modeling. UModel constructs a virtual ontological layer where heterogeneous telemetry, entities, and expert knowledge are standardized as objects and interconnected via semantic graphs. In addition, we introduce U-SPL, a pipeline-based query interface that enables agents to autonomously explore system topologies and correlate multimodal data. By re-modeling the "AIOps 2025 Challenge" dataset using UModel, the precision of root cause localization improved by 8%, demonstrating that enhanced data organization can significantly increase the accuracy of downstream tasks. UModel provides a scalable modeling framework that, in its deployment at Alibaba Cloud for more than one year, has served tens of thousands of users, sustained millions of operations per second, and delivered sub-second query latency.

Lifelong learning is essential for Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating in dynamic, interactive environments. However, existing lifelong learning agents for long-horizon tasks typically depend on discrete skill or past experiences retrieval with static parameters during inference, which prevents them from continuously internalizing test-time feedback like human learners. To bridge this gap, we propose Skill-enhanced Test-Time Co-Evolution (LifeSkill), a two-stage reinforcement learning framework for Online Lifelong Learning Agents. Specifically, we design Verifier-Guided Skill Learning that addresses the lack of direct supervision for skill extraction by rewarding candidate skills according to the average verifier success of multiple skill-conditioned policy rollouts, encouraging the model to generate skills that are useful for solving tasks rather than merely plausible in text. Furthermore, we introduce Online Skill Internalization, which continuously improves the policy model during test-time interaction by transforming skill-conditioned trajectories into reward signals. This enables the agent to directly internalize reasoning capabilities into its parameters, avoiding the context bloat of experience retrieval. Experiments on LifelongAgentBench show that LifeSkill improves average performance by 7 absolute points by comparing with existing lifelong agent baselines.

Most top-performing autonomous data-science agents rely on frontier cloud models and lack persistent, cross-session memory. This paper addresses two open gaps: (1) the underexplored use of formally structured, quality-controlled Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) case bases coupling symbolic case records with executable code artefacts; and (2) the untested viability of Small Language Models (SLMs) as locally deployable agent backbones. We present CBR-augmented R&D-Agent, integrating a persistent CBR layer into Microsoft's R&D-Agent framework with a custom backend for Gemma 4 31B Dense — the first published end-to-end evaluation of Gemma 4 as an autonomous data-science agent backbone. The CBR layer overrides three R&D loop phases via a surgical subclass toggled by a single environment variable. Cases are stored as structured records with executable code snapshots and quality metadata; a five-gate quality filter and a heuristic reuse-detection mechanism assess knowledge transfer by combining embedding similarity, code-fingerprint overlap, and injection provenance. Evaluated on two Kaggle competitions (NOMAD 2018, Spaceship Titanic) with four seeds over eight improvement loops each, CBR achieves directionally higher accuracy than the CBR-disabled baseline on Spaceship Titanic (0.8147 vs. 0.8098, d = -1.41) with substantially lower variance. Heuristic reuse detection across 108 retrieval events shows high semantic relevance (mean embedding similarity 0.882) alongside variable structural proximity (mean code-fingerprint similarity 0.305), consistent with conceptual guidance rather than verbatim code copying.

Current AI benchmarks evaluate agents on task execution within human-designed workflows. These evaluations fundamentally fail to measure a critical next-level capability: whether models can autonomously develop agent systems. We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development. Specifically, a code agent (the meta-agent) is given a sandboxed environment, an evaluation API, and a time limitation to iteratively program an agent artifact that maximizes performance on a held-out test set across five domains. To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking. Leveraging this framework, we demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models. Moreover, the design process exhibits high variance, and high optimization pressure surfaces emergent adversarial behaviors like ground-truth exfiltration-highlighting critical deficits in both robustness and model alignment. Ultimately, MAC provides a rigorous, open-source benchmark for autonomous AI research and development, offering an empirical proxy for evaluating recursive self-improvement. Benchmark is publicly available at: https://github.com/ant-research/meta-agent-challenge.

Biomedical agents promise to automate complex biological workflows, yet current systems face two fundamental bottlenecks: bioinformatics tools are highly heterogeneous in interfaces and execution environments, while agent planning still relies on flat prompt-retrieved tool descriptions. As biomedical software ecosystems grow, this coupling between tool coverage and context size leads to tool confusion, unstable planning, and inefficient execution. We introduce BioManus, an MCP-native biomedical agent built on graph-scaffolded planning over structured biological capabilities. BioManus first introduces the BioinfoMCP Compiler, which converts heterogeneous bioinformatics software into standardized MCP servers, yielding a large executable MCP ecosystem. It then organizes this ecosystem as a typed heterogeneous MCP graph over tools, operations, datatypes, and workflow stages. At inference time, BioManus retrieves compact task-specific subgraphs, synthesizes operation-level workflow scaffolds. This design decouples planning complexity from raw tool inventory size, achieving a context compression ratio of Theta(N / (h * m_bar)) under high-recall retrieval, where N is the total tool count, h is the workflow horizon, and m_bar (much smaller than N) is the average number of candidate tools per operation. Experiments on BioAgentBench and LAB-Bench show that BioManus improves execution accuracy, workflow validity, and context efficiency over advanced biomedical agent baselines. This work suggests a paradigm shift: scalable biomedical reasoning requires structured executable capability graphs rather than increasingly larger prompt-level tool retrieval.

Individual-level mobility prediction is central to urban simulation, transportation planning, and policy analysis. Supervised sequence models achieve strong accuracy but require task-specific training and offer limited decision-level transparency. Recent LLM-based methods improve interpretability, yet mostly rely on static prompts and single-pass inference, limiting their ability to seek additional evidence when mobility signals are weak or conflicting. We propose \method{}, a training-free LLM-driven agent framework that formulates next-location prediction as adaptive evidence-controlled decision making. \method{} resolves routine cases through a fast path based on historical regularity, while ambiguous cases trigger iterative tool use over recent trajectories, historical behavior, stay-move likelihood, and geographical evidence. Across three mobility datasets, AgentMob achieves the strongest overall performance among training-free LLM-based methods, with GPT-5.4 reaching 71.42% Acc@1 on BW, 33.14% on YJMob100K, and 33.50% on Shanghai ISP. On BW non-fast-path cases, the LLM controller improves Acc@1 from 30.65% to 48.62% over a same-tool statistical baseline, showing that its main benefit lies in resolving ambiguous predictions through adaptive evidence gathering. Our code is available at https://github.com/Unknown-zoo/AgentMob.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, retrieval systems, memory modules, environments, and other agents. These capabilities expand agent autonomy, but also make agent behavior harder to verify, debug, and audit. Final-answer accuracy alone cannot explain how an output was produced, which evidence supported each claim, whether tool calls were justified, how memory influenced later decisions, or where execution failures originated. Evidence tracing and execution provenance address this gap by modeling how retrieved evidence, tool outputs, memory items, environment observations, intermediate claims, actions, and final answers are connected throughout agent execution. This survey provides a systematic review and conceptual framework for evidence tracing and execution provenance in LLM agents. We organize related work around a unified provenance perspective that connects retrieval grounding, claim support, tool-use safety, memory lineage, observability, debugging, audit, and recovery. We introduce a taxonomy covering trace sources, evidence and execution units, provenance relations, tracing granularity and timing, representation forms, and trust functions. We review key methodological directions, including provenance representation, evidence attribution, tool-use provenance, runtime guardrails, provenance-bearing memory, trace-based observability, and failure diagnosis. We also map existing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics to provenance-related capabilities, and discuss how evaluation can move from final-answer correctness toward process-level accountability. Finally, we outline open challenges, including unified trace schemas, claim-level and semantic provenance, provenance-aware safety mechanisms, realistic execution-trace benchmarks, recovery-oriented evaluation, and privacy-aware audit infrastructure.

Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 $τ^2$-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks.

Trust in a decision-making system requires both safety guarantees and the ability to interpret and understand its behavior. This is particularly important for learned systems, whose decision-making processes are often highly opaque. Shielding is a prominent model-based technique for enforcing safety in reinforcement learning. However, because shields are automatically synthesized using rigorous formal methods, their decisions are often similarly difficult for humans to interpret. Recently, decision trees became customary to represent controllers and policies. However, since shields are inherently non-deterministic, their decision tree representations become too large to be explainable in practice. To address this challenge, we propose a novel approach for explainable safe RL that enhances trust by providing human-interpretable explanations of the shield's decisions. Our method represents the shielding policy as a hierarchy of decision trees, offering top-down, case-based explanations. At design time, we use a world model to analyze the safety risks of executing actions in given states. Based on this analysis, we construct both the shield and a high-level decision tree that classifies states into risk categories (safe, critical, dangerous, unsafe), explaining why a situation may be safety-critical. At runtime, we generate localized decision trees that explain which actions are allowed and why others are deemed unsafe. Our method facilitates explainability of the safety aspect in safe-by-shielding reinforcement learning, requires no additional information beyond what is already used for shielding, incurs minimal overhead, and integrates readily into existing shielded RL pipelines. In our experiments, we compute explanations using decision trees that are several orders of magnitude smaller than the original shield.