Despite the growing use of LLM-powered agents to solve multi-step tasks in complex environments, existing benchmarks rarely test state preservation, performance across languages, and application to realistic, grounded scenarios. To address these concerns, we present WorldBench: a comprehensive, multilingual benchmark of genuine, persona-grounded everyday workflows, where agents can act in a sandbox via structured actions. WorldBench comprises 1,600 tasks across seven languages and eight cultures, filtered and refined through feedback from human annotators with language- and culture-specific expertise. For evaluation, we extend metrics from previous works and introduce Constrained Task Success (CTS), which combines natural language instructions and testbeds to score task completion, minimal modification, and other complementary metrics through deterministic and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. Our experiments show that frontier models reach only 49.2

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with deductive judgment in syllogistic reasoning, systematically conflating semantic plausibility with formal validity a phenomenon known as content effect. This bias persists even when models generate step-wise explanations, indicating that intermediate rationales may inherit the same semantic shortcuts that affect answers. Recent approaches propose mitigating this issue by increasing inference-time structural constraints, either by encouraging abstract intermediate representations or by intervening directly in the model's internal computations; however, reliably suppressing semantic interference remains an open challenge. To make formal deduction less sensitive to semantic content, we introduce a framework for abstraction-guided reasoning that explicitly separates structural inference from lexical semantics. We construct paired content-laden and abstract syllogisms and use the model's activations on abstract inputs to define an abstract reasoning space. We then learn lightweight Abstractors that, from content-conditioned residual-stream states, predict representations aligned with this space and integrate these predictions via multi-layer interventions during the forward pass. Using cross-lingual transfer as a test bed, we show that abstraction-aligned steering reduces content-driven errors and improves validity-sensitive performance. Our results position activation-level abstraction as a scalable mechanism for enhancing the robustness of formal reasoning in LLMs against semantic interference.

Debate has emerged as a promising oversight mechanism for Large Language Models (LLMs) amid rising systemic complexity, particularly where models outperform human evaluators. Yet, Debate provides little verifiable evidence for its final judgments, and its scalability remains largely unexplored. To make oversight grounded and scale as capabilities extend, we introduce an Agentic Oversight framework. By using Dialectic Argumentation as a reasoning function, we extend this paradigm to multilingual and multimodal spaces. We employ a weak-to-strong oversight approach based on two expert models that evaluate and defend contesting answers, while a third blind judge determines the winner using Dialectic Argumentation. Experts argue only for belief-consistent answers, founding the Debate on disagreements. We experimented with six tasks on our framework in both multilingual and multimodal scenarios, and dialectic argumentation consistently outperforms single-expert baselines. Moreover, we show that dialectic judgements from a weaker model deliver argument-mediated supervision that, via fine-tuning, instils unsupervised reasoning signals in expert models.

LLMs often mistake what sounds true for what is formally valid. This limitation is especially evident in syllogistic reasoning, where plausible arguments can lead models to endorse conclusions that are logically invalid, a phenomenon known as Content Effect (CE).We present Boethius, a schema-guided framework for syllogistic reasoning that disentangles semantic plausibility from logical validity. Boethius adopts an auditable, quasi-formal reasoning process with two complementary stages: a Schema Module, which deduces the underlying logical form by analysing the formal structure of the premises, and an Instantiation Module, which instantiates this form over the concrete argument and evaluates validity independently of content-level semantics.Our results show that Boethius consistently outperforms existing approaches, improving syllogistic reasoning accuracy while substantially reducing CE. These gains hold for both large models in a pure in-context learning setting and smaller models trained via schema-guided trajectories using supervised fine-tuning and optimisation-based refinement.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising path to automate Clinical Trial Matching (CTM), but still struggle with the deterministic verification required for complex eligibility criteria. Conversely, purely symbolic methods provide formal rigour but break down when faced with incomplete patient records and noisy clinical evidence. To bridge this gap, we investigate a hybrid framework for CTM combining LLMs with logical verification. In particular, we introduce an abductive neurosymbolic CTM framework (αNeSy-CTM), which leverages the linguistic and world knowledge in LLMs to support reasoning over noisy and underspecified clinical text. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that αNeSy-CTM substantially outperforms standalone LLM baselines, achieving up to 30

AI agents struggle to operate within open and dynamic environments because they lack a fundamental capacity: the autonomous generation of abstractions. Current models remain static entities, incapable of compressing the infinite complexity of the real world into generalisable concepts once their training phase has concluded.We introduce EVA (Evolving Agents), a novel paradigm for autonomous learning driven by pseudo-symbolic abstraction. EVA introduces a meta-control system that dynamically orchestrates observation and active interaction to distil on-the-fly abstract representations of states, actions, and goals. By disentangling contextual noise from pure logical reasoning, these pseudo-symbolic abstractions allow the agent to construct a highly robust internal curriculum.EVA leverages these self-generated abstractions to form an internal curriculum. This continuous compression of raw sensorimotor experience into reusable concepts allows the agent to independently guide its own exploration, planning, and error correction. Structured upon a bi-level evolutionary-developmental (Evo/Devo) framework, EVA demonstrates how the dynamic refinement of abstractions enables rapid adaptation to unforeseen scenarios. This approach resolves the domain mismatch problem and lays the groundwork for truly autonomous, continuously evolving AI models.

Although reasoning is, by nature, language-agnostic, the extent to which large language models (LLMs) can perform consistent multilingual reasoning remains limited. Their capacity to deliver step-wise explanations is largely constrained to the dominant languages present in their pre-training data, thereby limiting cross-lingual generalisation and hindering broader global applicability. While recent work has explored a range of strategies to extend reasoning capabilities beyond English, these efforts typically remain grounded in surface-level spoken language phenomena, which may not be optimal for abstract or formal reasoning tasks. In this study, we focus on Italian and English, two languages with markedly different syntactic and morphological properties, to assess whether advancements in multilingual reasoning remain consistent and transferable across typologically diverse settings. To this end, we introduce a modular framework that guides LLMs to abstract the reasoning process into a structured problem space before generating step-wise reasoning trajectories. The approach leverages self-training to enhance alignment and generalisation. Experimental results demonstrate stable and significant gains in multilingual reasoning across models and tasks, with improved consistency between English and Italian.

The rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed natural language processing and broadened its impact across research and society. Yet, systematic evaluation of these models, especially for languages beyond English, remains limited. "Challenging the Abilities of LAnguage Models in ITAlian" (CALAMITA) is a large-scale collaborative benchmarking initiative for Italian, coordinated under the Italian Association for Computational Linguistics. Unlike existing efforts that focus on leaderboards, CALAMITA foregrounds methodology: it federates more than 80 contributors from academia, industry, and the public sector to design, document, and evaluate a diverse collection of tasks, covering linguistic competence, commonsense reasoning, factual consistency, fairness, summarization, translation, and code generation. Through this process, we not only assembled a benchmark of over 20 tasks and almost 100 subtasks, but also established a centralized evaluation pipeline that supports heterogeneous datasets and metrics. We report results for four open-weight LLMs, highlighting systematic strengths and weaknesses across abilities, as well as challenges in task-specific evaluation. Beyond quantitative results, CALAMITA exposes methodological lessons: the necessity of fine-grained, task-representative metrics, the importance of harmonized pipelines, and the benefits and limitations of broad community engagement. CALAMITA is conceived as a rolling benchmark, enabling continuous integration of new tasks and models. This makes it both a resource – the most comprehensive and diverse benchmark for Italian to date – and a framework for sustainable, community-driven evaluation. We argue that this combination offers a blueprint for other languages and communities seeking inclusive and rigorous LLM evaluation practices.

Chain-of-Though (CoT) represents a common strategy for reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) by decomposing complex tasks into intermediate inference steps. However, explanations generated via CoT are susceptible to content biases that negatively affect their robustness and faithfulness. To mitigate existing limitations, recent work has proposed using logical formalisms coupled with external symbolic solvers. However, fully symbolic approaches possess the bottleneck of requiring a complete translation from natural language to formal languages, a process that affects efficiency and flexibility. To achieve a trade-off, this paper investigates methods to disentangle content from logical reasoning without a complete formalisation. In particular, we present QuaSAR (for Quasi-Symbolic Abstract Reasoning), a variation of CoT that guides LLMs to operate at a higher level of abstraction via quasi-symbolic explanations. Our framework leverages the capability of LLMs to formalise only relevant variables and predicates, enabling the coexistence of symbolic elements with natural language. We show the impact of QuaSAR for in-context learning and for constructing demonstrations to improve the reasoning capabilities of smaller models. Our experiments show that quasi-symbolic abstractions can improve CoT-based methods by up to 8% accuracy, enhancing robustness and consistency on challenging adversarial variations on both natural language (i.e. MMLU-Redux) and symbolic reasoning tasks (i.e., GSM-Symbolic).

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is key to enhancing large language models (LLMs) to systematically access richer factual knowledge. Yet, using RAG brings intrinsic challenges, as LLMs must deal with potentially conflicting knowledge, especially in multilingual retrieval, where the heterogeneity of knowledge retrieved may deliver different outlooks. To make RAG more analytical, critical and grounded, we introduce Dialectic-RAG (DRAG), a modular approach guided by Argumentative Explanations, i.e., structured reasoning process that systematically evaluates retrieved information by comparing, contrasting, and resolving conflicting perspectives. Given a query and a set of multilingual related documents, DRAG selects and exemplifies relevant knowledge for delivering dialectic explanations that, by critically weighing opposing arguments and filtering extraneous content, clearly determine the final response. Through a series of in-depth experiments, we show the impact of our framework both as an in-context learning strategy and for constructing demonstrations to instruct smaller models. The final results demonstrate that DRAG significantly improves RAG approaches, requiring low-impact computational effort and providing robustness to knowledge perturbations.

We introduce the concept of protoknowledge to formalize and measure how sequences of tokens encoding Knowledge Graphs are internalized during pretraining and utilized at inference time by Large Language Models (LLMs). Indeed, LLMs have demonstrated the ability to memorize vast amounts of token sequences during pretraining, and a central open question is how they leverage this memorization as reusable knowledge through generalization. We then categorize protoknowledge into lexical, hierarchical, and topological forms, varying on the type of knowledge that needs to be activated. We measure protoknowledge through Knowledge Activation Tasks (KATs), analyzing its general properties such as semantic bias. We then investigate the impact of protoknowledge on Text-to-SPARQL performance by varying prompting strategies depending on input conditions. To this end, we adopt a novel analysis framework that assesses whether model predictions align with the successful activation of the relevant protoknowledge for each query. This methodology provides a practical tool to explore Semantic-Level Data Contamination and serves as an effective strategy for Closed-Pretraining models.

Recent works on large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the impact of prompting strategies and fine-tuning techniques on their reasoning capabilities. Yet, their effectiveness on clinical natural language inference (NLI) remains underexplored. This study presents the first controlled evaluation of how prompt structure and efficient fine-tuning jointly shape model performance in clinical NLI. We inspect four classes of prompting strategies to elicit reasoning in LLMs at different levels of abstraction, and evaluate their impact on a range of clinically motivated reasoning types. For each prompting strategy, we construct high-quality demonstrations using a frontier model to distil multi-step reasoning capabilities into smaller models (4B parameters) via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Across different language models fine-tuned on the NLI4CT benchmark, we found that prompt type alone accounts for up to 44