Abstract:Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) are an important building block for such agents and have been shown useful for patch validation. However, it remains unclear whether BRTs can also help the more central stage of patch generation. We first conduct a preliminary study and find that directly using advanced BRT generators to guide patch generation is not beneficial: fail-to-fail BRTs can mislead agents, while even fail-to-pass BRTs bring limited or negative gains. Our analysis reveals two reasons: fail-to-pass BRTs may cover only one manifestation of the reported issue, leading to partial patches, whereas fail-to-fail BRTs are unreliable as direct patch-generation targets. Motivated by these insights, we propose SWE-Doctor, a software issue resolution agent that guides patch generation with runtime diagnoses derived from multi-faceted BRT executions. SWE-Doctor first generates multi-faceted BRTs for different behavioral requirements stated in the issue, then executes and debugs these BRTs to construct runtime-grounded diagnosis records, and finally uses the diagnoses together with localization information inferred during BRT generation to guide patch generation and reduce partial patches. We evaluate SWE-Doctor on Python bug-fixing issues from the widely adopted SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro across five LLM backends. SWE-Doctor consistently outperforms existing agents across all 10 LLM-benchmark combinations, achieving average resolution rates of 75.7% on SWE-bench Verified and 59.4% on SWE-bench Pro. In particular, on the more challenging SWE-bench Pro, SWE-Doctor improves the average resolution rate by 8.0-8.9 percentage points over the baseline agents.
Abstract:In the agentic web era, LLM-based agents increasingly invoke web services as tools, yet most interfaces remain \emph{static endpoints} that poorly express long-horizon workflows with loops, conditionals, joins, and retries. We present ToolPro, which represents an agent's tool intent as an \emph{executable tool program} that compactly encodes multi-step service interactions with explicit effect types. ToolPro combines constraint-guided program construction, effect-aware replay for exactly-once state-modifying calls, and a profile-driven policy that decides when program execution outperforms stepwise calling. We instantiate ToolPro over MCP-style services with WebAssembly sandboxing and evaluate it on diverse workflows of real-world applications. ToolPro reduces end-to-end latency by up to 53.4\% and client-side traffic by up to 96.1\%, with larger gains under higher network latency and workflow complexity.
Abstract:Coding agents are increasingly used as iterative development partners, but most benchmarks still evaluate one specification followed by one final assessment. This leaves out a basic question: can an agent keep its own codebase working as requirements change? We introduce EvoCode-Bench, a benchmark of 26 stateful coding tasks and 227 evaluated rounds. Each task preserves the agent's workspace for 5-15 rounds, states requirements through observable behavior, and uses cumulative executable tests to check new requirements and still-active prior ones. We evaluate 13 coding agents with two metrics: MT@4, a four-attempt fail-stop multi-round score, and SR, a single-round score from a reference-completed prior state. For most agents, SR exceeds MT@4 by 22-40 points. The gap also changes rankings: the highest-SR agent (78.9) ranks only third in persistent execution (44.0 MT@4). Even the strongest agents achieve only about 50% success on multi-turn metrics, and aggregate pass rate drops below half of round-1 performance by round 5. Failure analysis shows tier-dependent behavior: weaker agents fail early, while stronger agents survive long enough to expose specification-tracking and regression failures. We release the benchmark data and Harbor multi-turn infrastructure.
Abstract:As AI becomes part of everyday learning, many courses teach students to use it mainly as a productivity tool: how to prompt, search, summarize, write, code, and use tools more efficiently. We argue that AI education also needs a setting in which students learn to test AI and understand their own role in judging machine-produced knowledge. To this end, we introduce a course-based practice that teaches AI through benchmark construction, using deep research systems as a concrete example of AI-era knowledge work. Students turn disciplinary knowledge into verifiable expert-level questions, review one another's designs for ambiguity and shortcuts, and evaluate AI systems on the resulting tasks. This activity gives students direct exposure to a powerful tool while asking them to specify what a trustworthy answer would require. The produced benchmark, QuestBench, consists of 256 questions across 14 humanities and social-science domains. Evaluation on QuestBench shows that student-designed tasks reveal hidden failures in current deep research systems: across thirteen evaluated systems, the mean question-level pass rate is only 16.85%, and the best-performing system, GPT-5.5, reaches a 57.58% pass rate. The failures are educationally useful because they show how fluent, source-backed answers can still miss the right query, source, term, or evidence standard. Reflections from five student contributors suggest that benchmark construction can help students see professional knowledge not only as content AI may retrieve, but as the basis for judging AI outputs. We present QuestBench as a benchmark artifact and as a reusable classroom setting for a larger educational question: how students can remain responsible knowledge actors as AI enters learning and professional work. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/QuestBench/tree/main.
Abstract:Recent advances in large language models and tool-using agents have expanded the range of benchmarked web tasks. Yet an important class of specialized retrieval tasks remains undercharacterized. On many specialized data-retrieval websites, answer-bearing evidence becomes accessible only after establishing the correct site-specific retrieval state through filters, views, hierarchies, or scopes. We term this capability state-gated retrieval (SGR). We introduce SGR-Bench, a benchmark for this setting containing 100 expert-curated tasks spanning six source families and 12 public data ecosystems. Each task requires discovering the appropriate website and configuring its site-specific retrieval state to produce a structured answer. SGR-Bench pairs constraint-guided and goal-oriented formulations of the same underlying problems, enabling controlled comparisons between explicit and implicit guidance for state-gated retrieval. We evaluate eight CLI-based agentic LLM systems and three commercial search-agent products. On SGR-Bench, the strongest system reaches only 66.18% item-level F1, while row-level F1 remains much lower. A manual audit of 156 analyzable failed CLI trajectories shows why: agents often reach a relevant web source, but establish the wrong site-specific retrieval state. Retrieval-scope drift (37.2%) and criterion mismatch (27.6%) dominate, whereas final answer composition accounts for only 10.3%. The dataset and single-case evaluation instructions are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/SGR-BENCH.
Abstract:Although LLMs have made substantial progress in reasoning, systematically producing frontier-level reasoning data remains difficult. Existing synthesis methods often have limited visibility into the structural factors that govern problem difficulty, which can result in narrow diversity and unstable difficulty control. In this work, we view the difficulty of a reasoning problem as arising from the accumulation of atomic knowledge-reasoning transformations, which we term thought modes. Building on this perspective, we propose MindLoom, a framework for synthesizing frontier-level reasoning data through compositional thought mode engineering. Given a collection of hard problems with verified solutions, MindLoom first decomposes those solutions into thought mode chains that reveal each problem's construction logic. It then trains a retrieval model that matches problem states to compatible thought modes, providing guidance on which reasoning challenges to introduce during synthesis. New problems are composed by iteratively applying retrieved thought modes to seed questions, with distribution-aligned sampling to encourage diverse reasoning coverage. Finally, a rollout-based judging stage labels generated questions by difficulty and supplies judged-correct responses for supervised fine-tuning. We evaluate MindLoom on nine benchmarks covering five STEM disciplines and four mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple model families and sizes. Models fine-tuned on MindLoom-generated data achieves favorable performances over base models, distillation, and external-data baselines across the reported benchmarks. Ablation studies indicate the contribution of each component, and further analysis suggests that MindLoom covers a broad range of reasoning patterns while maintaining useful difficulty control. We have open-sourced our implementation at https://github.com/EachSheep/MindLoom.
Abstract:Deep research, in which an agent searches the open web, collects evidence, and derives an answer through extended reasoning, is a prominent use case for frontier language models. Frontier deep research products score high on existing benchmarks, making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities from current evaluation data alone. We introduce DeepWeb-Bench, a deep research benchmark that is substantially harder than existing benchmarks for the current frontier. Difficulty comes from three properties of the data itself: each task requires massive evidence collection, cross-source reconciliation, and long-horizon multi-step derivation. We represent these three sources of difficulty as four capability families (Retrieval, Derivation, Reasoning, and Calibration) and report results sliced by family. Every reference answer is accompanied by a source-provenance record with four disclosure levels and cross-source checks where available, making scores easier to audit against the underlying evidence. We evaluate DeepWeb-Bench on nine frontier models and report three findings: (1) retrieval is not the bottleneck, as retrieval failures account for only 12-14% of errors while derivation and calibration failures account for over 70%; (2) strong and weak models fail in qualitatively different ways, with strong models' errors dominated by incomplete derivation and weak models' by hallucinated precision; and (3) models exhibit genuine specialization across domains, with cross-model agreement of only rho = 0.61 and per-case disagreement reaching 18.8 percentage points. The public benchmark release includes the data, rubrics, and evaluation code.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed on mobile devices, where Neural Processing Units (NPUs) necessitate fully static quantization for optimal inference efficiency. However, existing post-training quantization (PTQ) methods predominantly rely on dynamic activation quantization, rendering them incompatible with NPU hardware constraints. To bridge the gap between high-fidelity PTQ and NPU-constrained inference, we propose Quant.npu, a integer-only fully static quantization framework. It incorporates learnable quantization parameters and rotation matrices, enabling low-bit activation-weight quantization without runtime quantization parameters re-computation. Crucially, we identify that initialization and selective optimization of quantization parameters is pivotal for optimization stability, as improper initialization and naive joint optimization induce gradient instability that disrupts the optimization of rotation matrices. To address this, we propose a rotation-and-bit-width-aware initialization tailored to diverse activation profiles and a distribution-aware selective optimization (two-stage quantization pipeline) tailored to rotated and unrotated tensors. Furthermore, we introduce a sensitivity-guided adaptive mixed-precision scheme to balance accuracy with inference efficiency. Extensive experiments on real-world mobile NPUs demonstrate that Quant.npu achieves comparable accuracy to state-of-the-art methods, while reducing inference latency by up to 15.1%.
Abstract:Recent deep research systems have improved the ability of large language models to produce long, grounded reports through iterative retrieval and reasoning. However, most text-centered systems rely mainly on textual evidence, while multimodal systems often retrieve images only weakly or generate charts themselves, leaving source figures underused as evidence. We present ViDR, a multimodal deep research framework that grounds long-form reports in source figures. ViDR treats source figures as retrievable, interpretable, routable, and verifiable evidence objects, while still generating analytical charts when needed. It builds an evidence-indexed outline linking claims to textual and visual evidence, refines noisy web images into source-figure evidence atoms through context-aware filtering, outline-aware reranking, and VLM-based visual analysis, and generates each section with section-specific evidence. ViDR further validates visual references to reduce hallucinated or misplaced figures. We also introduce MMR Bench+, a benchmark for evaluating visual evidence use in deep research reports, covering source-figure retrieval, placement, interpretation, verifiability, and analytical chart generation. Experiments show that ViDR improves overall report quality, source-figure integration, and verifiability over strong commercial and open-source baselines. These results suggest that source visual evidence is important for multimodal deep research, as it strengthens evidential grounding, visual support, and report verifiability.
Abstract:LLMs have demonstrated significant potential in quantitative finance by processing vast unstructured data to emulate human-like analytical workflows. However, current LLM-based methods primarily follow either an Asset-Centric paradigm focused on individual stock prediction or a Market-Centric approach for portfolio allocation, often remaining agnostic to the underlying reasoning that drives market movements. In this paper, we propose a Logic-Oriented perspective, modeling the financial market as a dynamic, evolutionary ecosystem of competing investment narratives, termed Modes of Thought. To operationalize this view, we introduce MEME (Modeling the Evolutionary Modes of Financial Markets), designed to reconstruct market dynamics through the lens of evolving logics. MEME employs a multi-agent extraction module to transform noisy data into high-fidelity Investment Arguments and utilizes Gaussian Mixture Modeling to uncover latent consensus within a semantic space. To model semantic drift among different market conditions, we also implement a temporal evaluation and alignment mechanism to track the lifecycle and historical profitability of these modes. By prioritizing enduring market wisdom over transient anomalies, MEME ensures that portfolio construction is guided by robust reasoning. Extensive experiments on three heterogeneous Chinese stock pools from 2023 to 2025 demonstrate that MEME consistently outperforms seven SOTA baselines. Further ablation studies, sensitivity analysis, lifecycle case study and cost analysis validate MEME's capacity to identify and adapt to the evolving consensus of financial markets. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/gta0804/MEME.