Daily Papers

Self-evolving agents accumulate capability by distilling reusable skills from their execution trajectories, but we find this process is not monotonic: past a critical pool size, newly added skills degrade performance instead of improving it. We formalize this capability-contamination phase transition and trace it to a structural cause: once a defective skill enters the decision context, it becomes reference material for distilling later skills, forming cross-round contamination chains. We further show the contamination is structurally irreversible: removing a source skill after the fact cannot erase the flawed reasoning its descendants have already inherited, so post-hoc rollback recovers only a small fraction of the lost performance. This makes skill admission a pre-commit necessity rather than a post-hoc fix, and motivates Verifier-as-Gatekeeper (VaG): a progressive trust hierarchy whose three heterogeneous critics - structural validity, behavioral harmlessness, and semantic consistency - filter each skill individually, coupled with a marginal-gain subset selection that removes combinatorial contamination at the top tier before skills reach the runtime context. On Terminal-Bench 2, unconditional accumulation rises to a peak and then degrades, giving back most of its gains as the pool keeps growing, and post-hoc removal of the culprit skills recovers only a small part of the drop - the empirical signature of irreversibility. In contrast, VaG improves every round, reaching 72% pass@1 with a pool roughly 5x smaller, and its frozen skill pool transfers positively to four other backbones and a second benchmark without re-evolution. Ablations confirm the three critics are complementary and mutually non-substitutable, each intercepting a largely disjoint class of harmful skills.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.

A guardrail classifier is reported as if unsafe were a property of text. It is not: it is a property of a policy, and the policy enters the model through its labels. We exploit an accident of an industrial deployment in which the same ~53k prompts were labelled twice, under two operational definitions ("is this a request for harmful content?" and "would a moderator block this?"), and used to train ten guardrail arms sharing architecture, codebase and optimiser family, at two model scales. First, the guardrail's own training corpus already contained the benchmarks: JailbreakBench-benign is 88% and OR-Bench-hard 82% present in the training pools, two over-refusal benchmarks, the kind a guardrail reports to argue it does not over-block. Everything below is decontaminated. Second, safety benchmarks stratify sharply by how much of their score is decided by the label definition rather than by the model: with architecture and optimiser fixed, the range across the ten arms is 0.99 on HarmBench-copyright and 0.043 on WildGuard-benign, a 23x spread. Third, a benchmark score can be moved across its entire range by 0.03% of the parameters. Across these arms HarmBench-copyright spans 0-100 and OR-Bench-hard over-refusal 3.4-56.4%, and the four arms whose last supervision signal carries a given policy occupy one extreme of both (exact rank p=0.005, or 0.04-0.14 at worst), at unchanged detection capability. For a distilled student the teacher's soft labels do this even when every hard label carries the other policy, so teacher provenance is an unrecorded confound in any released checkpoint. Fourth, validation accuracy on the one split that grades all twenty arms tracks agreement with the annotator's policy (rho=+0.74), not detection capability (rho=+0.34). We argue that guardrail evaluations should report contamination, a seed floor and the definition they were graded against as first-class variables.

Test data from public benchmarks inevitably leaks into pretraining corpora, inflating evaluation scores once memorized. Contamination mitigation evaluation intervenes in the decoding process to suppress memorization and restore a contaminated model's genuine capability, but its prevailing metric, the G-AP (Gap of Aggregate Performance), is flawed. Discrete correct/incorrect readouts cannot characterize per-question performance, averaging before differencing lets over- and under-suppression cancel out, and uniform per-question weighting invites strategies to push solve probabilities onto the clean model's high-frequency values. We propose SA-PPG (Stratified Aggregate of Per-question Probability Gaps): estimate each question's solve probability by sampling, difference it against the clean model per question, and aggregate within groups defined by the clean model's solve probability. Existing mitigation strategies first estimate where contamination lies and then operate on the estimate, so they are only as correct as the estimate. RailCap instead judges contamination during generation: whenever a sample falls back onto the greedy trajectory, the next trajectory token is capped to the runner-up, accumulating suppression until the response distribution becomes sufficiently dispersed. Across multiple contaminated models and benchmarks, SA-PPG reveals that prior strategies' restoration is substantially overestimated, while RailCap attains the lowest SA-PPG.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood. Existing evaluations largely emphasize task-level accuracy, often conflating pattern matching with reasoning capability. We present X-RAY, an explainable reasoning analysis system that maps the LLM reasoning capability using calibrated, formally verified probes. We model reasoning capability as a function of extractable structure, operationalized through formal properties such as constraint interaction, reasoning depth, and solution-space geometry. X-Ray generates probes via formal tools with controlled structural variations, enabling precise isolation of incremental structural information through formal calibration and verification. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on problems ranging from junior-level to advanced in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Our analysis reveals a systematic asymmetry in LLM reasoning: models are relatively robust to constraint refinement, where additional conditions shrink an existing solution space, but degrade sharply under solution-space restructuring, where modifications alter the underlying structural form of the solution manifold. Moreover, calibrated formal probes differentiate models that appear indistinguishable on standard benchmarks and reveal failure modes that are structurally interpretable rather than opaque. Beyond evaluation, our framework is contamination-free and supports the training and testing of reasoning models.

Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence. This can inflate performance estimates and fail to reflect true capability on novel claims that require up-to-date information. To address this, emerging dynamic benchmarks collect claims published after LLMs' knowledge cut-off dates, assuming they are uncontaminated. This work revisits this assumption by empirically studying contamination risks in both the state-of-the-art (SOTA) static AVeriTeC benchmark and our newly constructed dynamic ClaimReview2025Q4 benchmark, as well as their impact on MAFC evaluation. Our experiments yield 16 findings, highlighting three key results: (1) Dynamic evaluation reduces but does not eliminate contamination risks, as 17.09\%--29.30\% of post-cut-off claims remain potentially contaminated; (2) Many newly published claims can be verified either directly or by synthesizing multiple pieces of public knowledge available before the cut-off; and (3) Contamination can induce statistically significant inflation in MAFC performance, increasing Macro-F1 by up to 11.34 points and distorting system rankings. In light of these findings, we re-evaluate SOTA LLMs under a strictly contamination-controlled setting. Our study provides practical guidelines for trustworthy MAFC evaluation.

Recent advances in deep-research systems have demonstrated the potential for AI agents to autonomously discover and synthesize knowledge from external sources. In this paper, we introduce WebResearcher, a novel framework for building such agents through two key components: (1) WebResearcher, an iterative deep-research paradigm that reformulates deep research as a Markov Decision Process, where agents periodically consolidate findings into evolving reports while maintaining focused workspaces, overcoming the context suffocation and noise contamination that plague existing mono-contextual approaches; and (2) WebFrontier, a scalable data synthesis engine that generates high-quality training data through tool-augmented complexity escalation, enabling systematic creation of research tasks that bridge the gap between passive knowledge recall and active knowledge construction. Notably, we find that the training data from our paradigm significantly enhances tool-use capabilities even for traditional mono-contextual methods. Furthermore, our paradigm naturally scales through parallel thinking, enabling concurrent multi-agent exploration for more comprehensive conclusions. Extensive experiments across 6 challenging benchmarks demonstrate that WebResearcher achieves state-of-the-art performance, even surpassing frontier proprietary systems.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved the field of Document AI, demonstrating remarkable performance on document understanding tasks such as question answering. However, existing approaches primarily focus on solving specific tasks, lacking the capability to structurally organize and manage document information. To address this limitation, we propose Revise, a framework that systematically corrects errors introduced by OCR at the character, word, and structural levels. Specifically, Revise employs a comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy of common OCR errors and a synthetic data generation strategy that realistically simulates such errors to train an effective correction model. Experimental results demonstrate that Revise effectively corrects OCR outputs, enabling more structured representation and systematic management of document contents. Consequently, our method significantly enhances downstream performance in document retrieval and question answering tasks, highlighting the potential to overcome the structural management limitations of existing Document AI frameworks.

The growing ability of large language models and vision language models to jointly interpret and reason over images and text is reshaping medical agents, moving them from task specific predictors toward autonomous systems that perceive, reason, plan, remember, and act in clinical environments. This work departs from the capability first perspective of existing literature and instead begins from clinical deployment, asking what tasks, contamination resistant benchmarks, and interactive training environments are required before medical agents can be trusted in practice. Medical agents are formalized as sequential decision making systems under partial observability, together with a three level autonomy taxonomy spanning assisted, cooperative, and fully autonomous operation. The field is organized along a unified scaling spine consisting of framework scaling, capability scaling, and environment scaling. Within this framework, clinical environment scaling, the integration of tools, data, and clinical gyms, is identified as the most actionable yet underexplored direction for agents operating in PACS, EHR, and FHIR ecosystems. Clinical self evolution, where agents improve through interaction with their environments rather than parameter scaling alone, is further positioned as a key research frontier, drawing insights from self improving agents, agent gyms, and test time compute scaling. Applications across radiology, pathology, ophthalmology, and hospital workflows are examined together with deployment challenges including hallucination, cascading failures, and fairness. By consolidating more than 300 references, with particular emphasis on advances from 2025 to 2026, this work provides a roadmap toward trustworthy, self improving medical imaging systems for real clinical practice.

Self-distillation improves reasoning in large language models by using the model's own rollouts as training signal, typically through implicit logit-level alignment that minimizes KL divergence toward a privileged target distribution. However, because this supervision is generated via uncontrolled sampling, it provides no diagnostic insight into the model's specific errors or corrective guidance for its individual failure patterns. Consequently, the model learns to imitate a privileged distribution rather than receiving fine-grained corrections that pinpoint where and why its reasoning fails. In this paper, we propose Trajectory-Augmented Policy Optimization (TAPO), which advances self-distillation from implicit distributional alignment to explicit trajectory construction. During RL training, the model produces both correct and incorrect rollouts to the same query, and TAPO leverages this contrastive structure to construct micro-reflective corrections, new training trajectories that retain the model's erroneous reasoning up to the point of failure, then insert a natural-language diagnosis and corrected reasoning guided by a correct reference from the same sampling group. Since each trajectory is anchored in the learner's own prefix and solutions, the corrective signal preserves the model's on-policy distribution to a greater extent than the position-wise alignment imposed by KL-based methods. To integrate these trajectories, TAPO introduces difficulty-aware candidate selection at the model's capability boundary and decoupled advantage estimation to prevent gradient contamination. Experiments on AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and HMMT 2025 show that TAPO achieves consistent improvements over GRPO under the same number of training steps. Further analysis demonstrates that TAPO strengthens both first-pass reasoning and error-correction effectiveness.

The nature of abstract reasoning is a matter of debate. Modern artificial neural network (ANN) models, like large language models, demonstrate impressive success when tested on abstract reasoning problems. However, it has been argued that their success reflects some form of memorization of similar problems (data contamination) rather than a general-purpose abstract reasoning capability. This concern is supported by evidence of brittleness, and the requirement of extensive training. In our study, we explored whether abstract reasoning can be achieved using the toolbox of ANNs, without prior training. Specifically, we studied an ANN model in which the weights of a naive network are optimized during the solution of the problem, using the problem data itself, rather than any prior knowledge. We tested this modeling approach on visual reasoning problems and found that it performs relatively well. Crucially, this success does not rely on memorization of similar problems. We further suggest an explanation of how it works. Finally, as problem solving is performed by changing the ANN weights, we explored the connection between problem solving and the accumulation of knowledge in the ANNs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for temporal prediction, but their reliance on pretraining data raises contamination concerns, as accurate predictions on pre-cutoff test data may reflect memorization rather than reasoning, leading to an overestimation of their generalization capability. With the recent emergence of prompting-based unlearning techniques, a natural question arises: Can LLMs be prompted to simulate an earlier knowledge cutoff? In this work, we investigate the capability of prompting to simulate earlier knowledge cutoff in LLMs. We construct three evaluation datasets to assess the extent to which LLMs can forget (1) direct factual knowledge, (2) semantic shifts, and (3) causally related knowledge. Results demonstrate that while prompt-based simulated knowledge cutoffs show effectiveness when directly queried with the information after that date, they struggle to induce forgetting when the forgotten content is not directly asked but causally related to the query. These findings highlight the need for more rigorous evaluation settings when applying LLMs for temporal prediction tasks. The full dataset and evaluation code are available at https://github.com/gxx27/time_unlearn.

LiveCodeBench (LCB) has recently become a widely adopted benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on code-generation tasks. By curating competitive programming problems, constantly adding fresh problems to the set, and filtering them by release dates, LCB provides contamination-aware evaluation and offers a holistic view of coding capability. However, LCB remains restricted to Python, leaving open the question of whether LLMs can generalize across the diverse programming languages required in real-world software engineering. We introduce Multi-LCB, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs across twelve programming languages, including Python. Multi-LCB transforms Python tasks from the LCB dataset into equivalent tasks in other languages while preserving LCB's contamination controls and evaluation protocol. Because it is fully compatible with the original LCB format, Multi-LCB will automatically track future LCB updates, enabling systematic assessment of cross-language code generation competence and requiring models to sustain performance well beyond Python. We evaluated 24 LLMs for instruction and reasoning on Multi-LCB, uncovering evidence of Python overfitting, language-specific contamination, and substantial disparities in multilingual performance. Our results establish Multi-LCB as a rigorous new benchmark for multi-programming-language code evaluation, directly addressing LCB's primary limitation and exposing critical gaps in current LLM capabilities.