Measuring the creativity of large language models (LLMs) is essential for designing methods that can improve creativity and for enhancing our scientific understanding of this ability. To accomplish this, it has become common in recent years to administer tests of human creativity to LLMs. Although these tests provide a convenient and fully automated way to score "creativity," their validity as measures of machine creativity has not been established, and these tests already have limited validity as predictors of human creativity. To address this problem, we conduct the first large-scale, systematic study assessing the effectiveness of human creativity tests for predicting the creative achievement of LLMs across three target constructs: creative writing, divergent thinking, and scientific ideation. We find that the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and the Conditional DAT are the best predictors of creative writing and divergent thinking, respectively, but that test effectiveness varies significantly by construct, and no single test predicts all constructs well. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, no existing test reliably predicts scientific ideation ability. Motivated by this problem, we introduce the Divergent Remote Association Test (DRAT), a vocabulary-space test that assesses both convergent and divergent thinking in a single instrument. The DRAT is the first and only creativity test for LLMs that is a significant predictor of scientific ideation ability, demonstrating robustness across major design choices. Furthermore, the performance gain of the DRAT is not recoverable from any linear combination of the Divergent Association Task and the Remote Associates Test, indicating that assessing divergent and convergent thinking in the same test is essential to reliably predicting scientific ideation ability.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a common practice in multimodal large language models (MLLM) to enhance factual grounding and reduce hallucination. Yet, its reliance on retrieval exposes MLLMs to knowledge poisoning attacks, in which adversaries deliberately inject malicious multimodal content into external knowledge bases to steer models toward generating incorrect or even harmful responses. We present MM-PoisonRAG, a framework to systematically study the vulnerability of multimodal RAG under knowledge poisoning. Specifically, we design two novel attack strategies: Localized Poisoning Attack (LPA), which implants targeted, query-specific multimodal misinformation to manipulate outputs toward attacker-controlled responses, and Globalized Poisoning Attack (GPA), which uses a single, untargeted adversarial injection to broadly corrupt reasoning and collapse generation quality across all queries. Extensive experiments on diverse tasks, multimodal RAG components, and attacker access levels reveal severe vulnerabilities: LPA achieves up to 56% attack success rate even under restricted access, and transfers effectively across four different retrievers without re-optimizing the adversaries. GPA completely disrupts model generation to 0% accuracy with just one poisoned content. Moreover, both LPA and GPA bypass existing defenses, underscoring the fragility of multimodal RAG and establishing MM-PoisonRAG as a foundation for future research on securing RAG frameworks against multimodal knowledge poisoning.

Agents built on vision-language models increasingly face tasks that demand anticipating future states rather than relying on short-horizon reasoning. Generative world models offer a promising remedy: agents could use them as external simulators to foresee outcomes before acting. This paper empirically examines whether current agents can leverage such world models as tools to enhance their cognition. Across diverse agentic and visual question answering tasks, we observe that some agents rarely invoke simulation (fewer than 1%), frequently misuse predicted rollouts (approximately 15%), and often exhibit inconsistent or even degraded performance (up to 5%) when simulation is available or enforced. Attribution analysis further indicates that the primary bottleneck lies in the agents’ capacity to decide when to simulate, how to interpret predicted outcomes, and how to integrate foresight into downstream reasoning. These findings underscore the need for mechanisms that foster calibrated, strategic interaction with world models, paving the way toward more reliable anticipatory cognition in future agent systems.

Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have propelled embodied agents by enabling direct perception, reasoning, and planning task-oriented actions from visual inputs. However, such vision-driven embodied agents open a new attack surface: visual backdoor attacks, where the agent behaves normally until a visual trigger appears in the scene, then persistently executes an attacker-specified multi-step policy. We introduce BEAT, the first framework to inject such visual backdoors into VLM-based embodied agents using objects in the environments as triggers. Unlike textual triggers, object triggers exhibit wide variation across viewpoints and lighting, making them difficult to implant reliably. BEAT addresses this challenge by (1) constructing a training set that spans diverse scenes, tasks, and trigger placements to expose agents to trigger variability, and (2) introducing a two-stage training scheme that first applies supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and then our novel Contrastive Trigger Learning (CTL). CTL formulates trigger discrimination as preference learning between trigger-present and trigger-free inputs, explicitly sharpening the decision boundaries to ensure precise backdoor activation. Across various embodied agent benchmarks and VLMs, BEAT achieves attack success rates up to 80%, while maintaining strong benign task performance, and generalizes reliably to out-of-distribution trigger placements. Notably, compared to naive SFT, CTL boosts backdoor activation accuracy up to 39% under limited backdoor data. These findings expose a critical yet unexplored security risk in VLM-based embodied agents, underscoring the need for robust defenses before real-world deployment.

We introduce WildAGTEval, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language model (LLM) agents' function-calling capabilities under realistic API complexity. Unlike prior work that assumes an idealized API system and disregards real-world factors such as noisy API outputs, WildAGTEval accounts for two dimensions of real-world complexity: 1. API specification, which includes detailed documentation and usage constraints, and 2. API execution, which captures runtime challenges. Consequently, WildAGTEval offers (i) an API system encompassing 60 distinct complexity scenarios that can be composed into approximately 32K test configurations, and (ii) user-agent interactions for evaluating LLM agents on these scenarios. Using WildAGTEval, we systematically assess several advanced LLMs and observe that most scenarios are challenging, with irrelevant information complexity posing the greatest difficulty and reducing the performance of strong LLMs by 27.3

Planning for real-world problems by language models often involves both world and user constraints, which may not be fully specified upfront and are progressively disclosed through interaction. However, existing benchmarks still underexplore adaptive planning under such progressively revealed dual constraints. To address this gap, we introduce AdaPlanBench, a dynamic interactive benchmark for evaluating whether Large Language Model (LLM) agents can adaptively plan and re-plan under progressively revealed world and user constraints. AdaPlanBench is built on 307 household tasks, with a scalable constraint construction pipeline that augments each task with dual constraints. At runtime, agents interact with the environment in a multi-turn protocol where hidden constraints are revealed only when the agent proposes a plan that violates them, requiring iterative plan revision under accumulating feedback. This makes planning challenging, as agents must infer and track constraints from feedback while re-planning effectively. Experiments on ten leading LLMs show that adaptive planning under dual constraints remains challenging, with the best model reaching only 67.75

Overlapping calendar invitations force busy professionals to repeatedly decide which meetings to attend, reschedule, or decline. We refer to this preference-driven decision process as calendar conflict resolution. Automating this decision process is crucial yet challenging. Scheduling logistics can drain hours, and human delegation often fails at scale, which motivates us to ask: Can we trust large language models (LLMs) or language agents to manage time? To enable a systematic study of this question, we introduce CalConflictBench, a benchmark for long-horizon calendar conflict resolution. In CalConflictBench, conflicts are presented to agents round-by-round over a calendar year, requiring them to infer and adapt to user preferences progressively. Our experiments show that current LLM agents perform poorly with high error rates, e.g., Qwen-3-30B-Think has an average error rate of 35%. To address this gap, we propose PEARL, a reinforcement-learning framework that (i) augments the language agent with an external preference memory that stores and updates inferred strategies (e.g., attendee priorities, topic importance, time/location preferences), and (ii) optimizes the agent with round-wise rewards that directly supervise decision correctness, ranking quality, and memory usage across rounds. Experiments on CalConflictBench show that PEARL achieves an error reduction rate of 0.76 and a 55% improvement in average error rate compared to the strongest baseline.

Academic benchmarks for coding agents tend to reward autonomous task completion, measured by verifiable rewards such as unit-test success. In contrast, real-world coding agents operate with humans in the loop, where success signals are typically noisy, delayed, and sparse. How can we bridge this gap? In this paper, we propose a process to learn a "critic" model from sparse and noisy interaction data, which can then be used both as a reward model for either RL-based training or inference-time scaling. Specifically, we introduce Critic Rubrics, a rubric-based supervision framework with 24 behavioral features that can be derived from human-agent interaction traces alone. Using a semi-supervised objective, we can then jointly predict these rubrics and sparse human feedback (when present). In experiments, we demonstrate that, despite being trained primarily from trace-observable rubrics and sparse real-world outcome proxies, these critics improve best-of-N reranking on SWE-bench (Best@8 +15.9 over Random@8 over the rerankable subset of trajectories), enable early stopping (+17.7 with 83

Recent work on distillation transfers the capabilities of large models to smaller ones often by updating the latter's parameters, through teacher forcing, on-policy distillation, and related training-time methods. In this paper, we ask whether such transfer can instead occur at test time. We study strong-to-weak scaffolding: whether a stronger builder model can construct inference-time harnesses that help a weaker target model solve tasks more reliably without any parameter updates. Using four representative Theory-of-Mind benchmarks, each builder model uses 5

Inference-time computation techniques, analogous to human System 2 Thinking, have recently become popular for improving model performances. However, most existing approaches suffer from several limitations: they are modality-specific (e.g., working only in text), problem-specific (e.g., verifiable domains like math and coding), or require additional supervision/training on top of unsupervised pretraining (e.g., verifiers or verifiable rewards). In this paper, we ask the question "Is it possible to generalize these System 2 Thinking approaches, and develop models that learn to think solely from unsupervised learning?" Interestingly, we find the answer is yes, by learning to explicitly verify the compatibility between inputs and candidate-predictions, and then re-framing prediction problems as optimization with respect to this verifier. Specifically, we train Energy-Based Transformers (EBTs) -- a new class of Energy-Based Models (EBMs) -- to assign an energy value to every input and candidate-prediction pair, enabling predictions through gradient descent-based energy minimization until convergence. Across both discrete (text) and continuous (visual) modalities, we find EBTs scale faster than the dominant Transformer++ approach during training, achieving an up to 35% higher scaling rate with respect to data, batch size, parameters, FLOPs, and depth. During inference, EBTs improve performance with System 2 Thinking by 29% more than the Transformer++ on language tasks, and EBTs outperform Diffusion Transformers on image denoising while using fewer forward passes. Further, we find that EBTs achieve better results than existing models on most downstream tasks given the same or worse pretraining performance, suggesting that EBTs generalize better than existing approaches. Consequently, EBTs are a promising new paradigm for scaling both the learning and thinking capabilities of models.

Generative foundation models (GenFMs), such as large language models and text-to-image systems, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various downstream applications. As they are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications, assessing their trustworthiness has become both a critical necessity and a substantial challenge. Existing evaluation efforts are fragmented, rapidly outdated, and often lack extensibility across modalities. This raises a fundamental question: how can we systematically, reliably, and continuously assess the trustworthiness of rapidly advancing GenFMs across diverse modalities and use cases? To address these gaps, we introduce TrustGen, a dynamic and modular benchmarking system designed to systematically evaluate the trustworthiness of GenFMs across text-to-image, large language, and vision-language modalities. TrustGen standardizes trust evaluation through a unified taxonomy of over 25 fine-grained dimensions—including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics—while supporting dynamic data generation and adaptive evaluation through three core modules: Metadata Curator, Test Case Builder, and Contextual Variator. Taking TrustGen into action to evaluate the trustworthiness of 39 models reveals four key insights. (1) State-of-the-art GenFMs achieve promising overall trust performance, yet significant limitations remain in specific dimensions such as hallucination resistance, fairness, and privacy preservation. (2) Contrary to prevailing assumptions, open-source models now rival and occasionally surpass proprietary systems in trustworthiness metrics. (3) The trust gap among top-performing models is narrowing, likely due to increased industry convergence on best practices. (4) Trustworthiness is not an isolated property; it interacts complexly with other behaviors, such as helpfulness and ethical decision-making. TrustGen is a transformative step toward standardized, scalable, and actionable trustworthiness evaluation, supporting dynamic assessments across diverse modalities and trust dimensions that evolve alongside the generative AI landscape.

We introduce context conditioning, a phenomenon analogous to Pavlovian learning, in which large language models (LLMs) display heightened sensitivity to small amounts of novel contextual signals. This conditioning is double-edged. Carefully curated contexts can quickly steer models toward trustworthy, inclusive behavior, while minor malicious or biased signals can provoke unsafe, toxic, or privacy-compromising responses. We reveal this double-edged behavior with two studies that collectively highlight the underlying associative amplification mechanism through which novel or low-frequency contextual cues exert outsized influence on model attention and response distributions. Trust in context-based artificial intelligence (AI) thus depends not only on model design but also on how context governs behavior at inference time. We outline five research directions for building trustworthy context-based LLM systems and argue that the future of responsible AI lies not only in safer models but in safer contexts, meaning systems that understand, audit, and adapt to the stimuli that condition them.

The convergence of artificial intelligence and materials science presents a transformative opportunity, but achieving true acceleration in discovery requires moving beyond task-isolated, fine-tuned models toward agentic systems that plan, act, and learn across the full discovery loop. This survey advances a unique pipeline-centric view that spans from corpus curation and pretraining, through domain adaptation and instruction tuning, to goal-conditioned agents interfacing with simulation and experimental platforms. Unlike prior reviews, we treat the entire process as an end-to-end system to be optimized for tangible discovery outcomes rather than proxy benchmarks. This perspective allows us to trace how upstream design choices-such as data curation and training objectives-can be aligned with downstream experimental success through effective credit assignment. To bridge communities and establish a shared frame of reference, we first present an integrated lens that aligns terminology, evaluation, and workflow stages across AI and materials science. We then analyze the field through two focused lenses: From the AI perspective, the survey details LLM strengths in pattern recognition, predictive analytics, and natural language processing for literature mining, materials characterization, and property prediction; from the materials science perspective, it highlights applications in materials design, process optimization, and the acceleration of computational workflows via integration with external tools (e.g., DFT, robotic labs). Finally, we contrast passive, reactive approaches with agentic design, cataloging current contributions while motivating systems that pursue long-horizon goals with autonomy, memory, and tool use. This survey charts a practical roadmap towards autonomous, safety-aware LLM agents aimed at discovering novel and useful materials.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn, yet how they behave under multi-turn evidence accumulation closer to real clinical reasoning remains unexplored. We introduce MINT (Medical Incremental N-Turn Benchmark), a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases with clinically labeled evidence shards, controlled turn granularity, and information-preserving decomposition. Through systematic evaluation of 11 LLMs on MINT, we uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions: (1) intent to answer, models rush to answer before sufficient evidence has been observed, with over 55

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse tasks but remain fundamentally static, unable to adapt their internal parameters to novel tasks, evolving knowledge domains, or dynamic interaction contexts. As LLMs are increasingly deployed in open-ended, interactive environments, this static nature has become a critical bottleneck, necessitating agents that can adaptively reason, act, and evolve in real time. This paradigm shift – from scaling static models to developing self-evolving agents – has sparked growing interest in architectures and methods enabling continual learning and adaptation from data, interactions, and experiences. This survey provides the first systematic and comprehensive review of self-evolving agents, organizing the field around three foundational dimensions: what, when, and how to evolve. We examine evolutionary mechanisms across agent components (e.g., models, memory, tools, architecture), categorize adaptation methods by stages (e.g., intra-test-time, inter-test-time), and analyze the algorithmic and architectural designs that guide evolutionary adaptation (e.g., scalar rewards, textual feedback, single-agent and multi-agent systems). Additionally, we analyze evaluation metrics and benchmarks tailored for self-evolving agents, highlight applications in domains such as coding, education, and healthcare, and identify critical challenges and research directions in safety, scalability, and co-evolutionary dynamics. By providing a structured framework for understanding and designing self-evolving agents, this survey establishes a roadmap for advancing more adaptive, robust, and versatile agentic systems in both research and real-world deployments, and ultimately sheds light on the realization of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) where agents evolve autonomously and perform beyond human-level intelligence across tasks.

Video-LLMs face a fundamental tension in long-video reasoning: static, sparse frame sampling either dilutes evidence across task-irrelevant segments at significant cost or misses fine-grained temporal semantics altogether. We propose a novel, cognitively-inspired task – Endomorphic Multimodal Compression (EMC) – as a structurally-constrained sufficient-statistic problem for VideoQA, and formulate it as an endomorphic transformation F_EMC : (V, Q) -> (v, q) that compresses the multimodal input while preserving answer invariance across reasonable downstream models. The endomorphic form keeps the compressed output in the downstream pipeline's native task space – a structural mirror of the filter-then-reason mechanism in the cognitive literature motivating EMC – distinguishing it from latent-code compression (IB / VIB) and making the formulation extensible to other multimodal settings. Under the Markov chain A -> (V, Q) -> (v, q), EMC realizes the classical sufficiency condition I((v, q); A) = I((V, Q); A) in its VideoQA-natural form. As a modular front-end, EMC plugs into both Video Instruction Tuning and Video Question Answering pipelines. We release the first dedicated benchmark and propose ReSimplifyIt, an EMC baseline surpassing prior methods by 0.40 F-1 with competitive query rewriting. Integrating EMC yields relative gains of 7.33

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming the foundation for autonomous agents that can use tools to solve complex tasks. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a common approach for injecting such agentic capabilities, but typically under tightly controlled training setups. It often depends on carefully constructed task-solution pairs and substantial human supervision, which creates a fundamental obstacle to open-ended self-evolution toward superintelligent systems. In this paper, we propose Tool-R0 framework for training general purpose tool-calling agents from scratch with self-play RL, under a zero-data assumption. Initialized from the same base LLM, Tool-R0 co-evolves a Generator and a Solver with complementary rewards: one proposes targeted challenging tasks at the other's competence frontier and the other learns to solve them with real-world tool calls. This creates a self-evolving cycle that requires no pre-existing tasks or datasets. Evaluation on different tool-use benchmarks show that Tool-R0 yields 92.5 relative improvement over the base model and surpasses fully supervised tool-calling baselines under the same setting. Our work further provides empirical insights into self-play LLM agents by analyzing co-evolution, curriculum dynamics, and scaling behavior.

Conversational agents often encounter ambiguous user requests, requiring an effective clarification to successfully complete tasks. While recent advancements in real-world applications favor multi-agent architectures to manage complex conversational scenarios efficiently, ambiguity resolution remains a critical and underexplored challenge–particularly due to the difficulty of determining which agent should initiate a clarification and how agents should coordinate their actions when faced with uncertain or incomplete user input. The fundamental questions of when to interrupt a user and how to formulate the optimal clarification query within the most optimal multi-agent settings remain open. In this paper, we propose MAC (Multi-Agent Clarification), an interactive multi-agent framework specifically optimized to resolve user ambiguities by strategically managing clarification dialogues. We first introduce a novel taxonomy categorizing user ambiguities to systematically guide clarification strategies. Then, we present MAC that autonomously coordinates multiple agents to interact synergistically with users. Empirical evaluations on MultiWOZ 2.4 demonstrate that enabling clarification at both levels increases task success rate 7.8% (54.5 to 62.3) and reduces the average number of dialogue turns (6.53 to 4.86) by eliciting all required user information up front and minimizing repetition. Our findings highlight the importance of active user interaction and role-aware clarification for more reliable human-agent communication.

Realizing the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate scientific progress and deliver technological impact depends on how effectively AI can be integrated into real-world decision-making processes. As Peter Norvig states, “Somewhat remarkably, almost all AI research until very recently has assumed that the performance measure can be exactly and correctly specified in the form of a utility or reward function” [S. J. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Pearson, 2020)]. Once the reward function is known, any problem can be formulated as an optimization or search problem—the areas well explored within the AI community. However, while the long-term objectives of a specific activity are often well defined, constructing short-term rewards that remain aligned with those goals and consistent with real-world constraints remains a major unresolved challenge. Such alignment has been achieved in domains such as chess, Go, and supervised machine learning problems, where objectives are well defined and easily simulated. However, no universal solution exists for defining intermediate rewards for complex, evolving scientific goals, which remains an open challenge. Correspondingly, the key to operationalizing automated instruments, integrating multi-instrument self-driving laboratories, and building geographically distributed research facilities is to generate experiment-aligned, probabilistic, domain-specific reward functions. These rewards must be consistent with long-term experimental objectives while remaining actionable on the timescales of decision-making on laboratory tools in microscopy and materials synthesis labs—proper reward definition operationalizes scientific intent. Here, we review the extant reward structures in the physical sciences and summarize opportunities for reward design informed by physical principles, human heuristics, and LLM-based reasoning.

Progress in AI has largely been driven by methods that assume less. As compute and data increase, approaches with weaker inductive biases generally outperform those with stronger assumptions. This is particularly characteristic of the field of Visual Representation Learning, where approaches have gone from being dominated by Supervised Learning, to Weakly Supervised Learning, to the now widespread success of Self-Supervised Learning without human labels. Yet, even modern Self-Supervised Learning approaches still depend on strong inductive biases such as augmentations, masking, or cropping. If this trend holds, even these remaining biases should become bottlenecks at scale -- and our experiments confirm this: the optimal strength of inductive biases decreases as data grows. This motivates the search for approaches that rely on fewer assumptions. To this end, we introduce Temporal Difference in Vision (TDV), a new paradigm for self-supervised learning from video that avoids existing inductive biases, relying instead on a causal assumption that the past causes the future. TDV functions by jointly training an image encoder and a motion encoder so that the current frame's representation plus the encoded motion equals the next frame's representation. Despite not leveraging any strong inductive biases, TDV matches state-of-the-art recipes on dense spatial tasks, laying the foundation for representation learning without strong assumptions.