ClueWeaver is a dual-agent framework designed to enable compact, locally deployable language models to answer questions about long literary narratives. The Finder agent retrieves passages that contain answer-critical clues, while the Interpreter agent derives the answer from those passages, generates rationales with paragraph-ID citations, and performs self-calibration for high-risk questions. Both agents are trained with reward-guided reinforcement learning to prioritize evidence retention, correctness, grounding, and concise explanations, resulting in improved performance and inspectability over end-to-end prompting.
By Jihao Zhu, Zhiwei Yang, Wenxiao Zhang, Junqian Zhao, Qi You, Fangqi Wang, Zheyuan Deng, Hanzhe Yang, Yu Liu, Jin B. Hong
CoEM introduces a Commit-on-Evidence Memory system that learns when to compress source evidence into compact memory facts while preserving potentially useful excerpts verbatim in a pending set. The system uses a learned policy to decide whether to promote, retain, or discard each pending excerpt as new context arrives, and a frozen verifier ensures only supported facts are committed. Reinforcement learning trains this policy with step-level evidence rewards and final answer rewards, leading to consistent improvements in long-context reasoning, achieving 10.4–11.4 F1 points over the strongest baseline on 6,400-document inputs.
By Jingguang Li, Yebo Wu, Zuyi Guo, Kailang Ma, Xianjie Dai, Han Zheng, Benwang Chen, Li Li, Can Rong, Heye Huang
arXiv:2606. 11211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment.
By Prakul Sunil Hiremath, Harshit R. Hiremath
arXiv:2610.27597v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Existing reasoning evaluations typically provide task-relevant information to models as available premises, rarely examining concurrently how models...
By Bo Zou, Chao Xu
arXiv:2607. 18100v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Extended reasoning has become standard for frontier Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the trajectories these models produce remain largely uncontrollable.
By Sheldon Yu, Tong Yu, Xunyi Jiang, Rohan Surana, Gagan Mundada, Sungchul Kim, Lina Yao, Julian McAuley, Junda Wu
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
By Xingyu Deng, Mingzi Cao, Nikolaos Aletras, Xi Wang, Mark Stevenson
arXiv:2508. 01273v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Explicit knowledge conflicts, occurring when retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, pose a fundamental challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) as they integrate increasingly diverse data sources.
By Xianda Zheng, Zijian Huang, Meng-Fen Chiang, Jiamou Liu, Yuan Fang, Michael Witbrock, Kaiqi Zhao
arXiv:2609.38406v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Access to real-world information is often noisy and fragmented. Constructing a coherent narrative from such fragments requires models to reconstruct mi...
By Eftekhar Hossain, John Salvador, Santu Karmaker
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
By Daeyeop Lee, Hwanjo Yu
arXiv:2606. 21678v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning.
By Vatsal Ananthula, Adarsh Kumarappan
The paper introduces a new task called reconciliatory explanation generation, where large language models (LLMs) must produce explanations that make contradictory statements compatible. It proposes reusing natural language inference datasets and new quality metrics for scalable evaluation. Experiments with 13 LLMs show limited success, especially when longer reasoning chains are involved, but reinforcement‑learning training improves performance on two narrative reasoning benchmarks.
By Jason Chan, Zhixue Zhao, Robert Gaizauskas
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen