Puns are a common form of rhetorical wordplay that exploits polysemy and phonetic similarity to create humor. In multimodal puns, visual and textual elements synergize to ground the literal sense and evoke the figurative meaning simultaneously. Although Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are widely used in multimodal understanding and generation, their ability to understand puns has not been systematically studied due to a scarcity of rigorous benchmarks. To address this, we first propose a multimodal pun generation pipeline. We then introduce MultiPun, a dataset comprising diverse types of puns alongside adversarial non-pun distractors. Our evaluation reveals that most models struggle to distinguish genuine puns from these distractors. Moreover, we propose both prompt-level and model-level strategies to enhance pun comprehension, with an average improvement of 16.5% in F1 scores. Our findings provide valuable insights for developing future VLMs that master the subtleties of human-like humor via cross-modal reasoning.

Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world pipelines, yet this deployment also enlarges the supply-chain attack surface: adversaries can distribute backdoored checkpoints that behave normally under standard evaluation but jailbreak when a hidden trigger is present. Recent post-hoc weight-editing methods offer an efficient approach to injecting such backdoors by directly modifying model weights to map a trigger to an attacker-specified response. However, existing methods typically optimize a token-level mapping that forces an affirmative prefix (e.g., “Sure”), which does not guarantee sustained harmful output—the model may begin with apparent agreement yet revert to safety-aligned refusal within a few decoding steps. We address this reliability gap by shifting the backdoor objective from surface tokens to internal representations. We extract a steering vector that captures the difference between compliant and refusal behaviors, and compile it into a persistent weight modification that activates only when the trigger is present. To preserve stealthiness and benign utility, we impose a null-space constraint so that the injected edit remains dormant on clean inputs. The method is efficient, requiring only a small set of examples and admitting a closed-form solution. Across multiple safety-aligned LLMs and jailbreak benchmarks, our method achieves high triggered attack success while maintaining non-triggered safety and general utility.

With the advancement of vision-language models, web automation has made significant progress. However, deploying autonomous agents in real-world settings remains challenging, primarily due to site heterogeneity, where generalist models lack domain-specific priors for diverse interfaces, and long-horizon instability, characterized by the accumulation of decision drift over extended interactions. To address these challenges, we introduce ColorBrowserAgent (Complex Long-Horizon Browser Agent), a knowledge-evolving agent for robust web automation. Our approach addresses these challenges through two synergistic mechanisms: human-in-the-loop knowledge adaptation that transforms sparse human feedback into reusable domain knowledge, and knowledge-aligned progressive summarization that stabilizes long interactions through memory compression. Extensive experiments on WebArena, WebChoreArena and industrial deployment show that ColorBrowserAgent consistently outperforms strong baselines. It achieves a state-of-the-art success rate of 71.2% on WebArena and maintains 47.4% performance under zero-shot transfer setting on WebChoreArena. In commercial deployment, it improves user satisfaction by 19.3% relatively, verifying its robustness in real-world scenarios.

Recently, Agentic AI has become an increasingly popular field of research. However, we argue that current practices on agent research are far from standard, rigorous scientific research, which makes it hard to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons among and against existing methods. As a result, it is still obscure how different design choices in an agent framework impact its effectiveness, and measuring progress on agent research remains very hard. In this work, we conduct a systematic empirical study on the GAIA benchmark to investigate the impact of different popular design choices within key agent components in a fair and rigorous way. To begin with, we find that the lack of a standard evaluation protocol makes previous works, even the open-sourced ones, not reproducible, and the variance between different random runs is often non-negligible. Therefore, we first introduce a more robust evaluation protocol to make comparisons more stable. Our empirical study then unveils which components and designs, as well as correlations between these designs, are the keys for building effective agents, while others are not and redundant, despite seemingly making sense. With the insights gained from our empirical study, we build and open-source OAgents, a new foundation agent framework that achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source projects, providing a good starting point and guidelines for building effective agents. More importantly, supports various design choices for agent components in a modularized way, facilitating future scientific research on Agentic AI.

Recent text-to-SQL systems powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in translating natural language queries into SQL.However, these systems often struggle with complex database structures and domain-specific queries, as they primarily focus on enhancing logical reasoning and SQL syntax while overlooking the critical need for comprehensive database understanding.To address this limitation, we propose DB-Explore, a novel framework that systematically aligns LLMs with database knowledge through automated exploration and instruction synthesis.DB-Explore constructs database graphs to capture complex relational schemas, leverages GPT-4 to systematically mine structural patterns and semantic knowledge, and synthesizes instructions to distill this knowledge for efficient fine-tuning of LLMs.Our framework enables comprehensive database understanding through diverse sampling strategies and automated instruction generation, bridging the gap between database structures and language models.Experiments conducted on the SPIDER and BIRD benchmarks validate the effectiveness of DB-Explore, achieving an execution accuracy of 67.0% on BIRD and 87.8% on SPIDER. Notably, our open‐source implementation based on Qwen2.5‐Coder‐7B achieves state‐of‐the‐art results at minimal computational cost, outperforming several GPT‐4‐driven Text‐to‐SQL systems.

Evaluating the performance of LLMs in multi-turn human-agent interactions presents significant challenges, particularly due to the complexity and variability of user behavior. In this paper, we introduce HammerBench, a novel benchmark framework for assessing LLMs’ function-calling capabilities in real-world, multi-turn dialogues. HammerBench simulates diverse mobile assistant use cases, incorporating imperfect instructions, dynamic question-answer trajectories, intent and argument shifts, and the indirect use of external information through pronouns. To construct this benchmark, we curate a comprehensive dataset derived from popular mobile app functionalities and anonymized user logs, complemented by a cost-effective data generation pipeline leveraging open-source models. HammerBench is further augmented with fine-grained interaction snapshots and metrics, enabling detailed evaluation of function-calling performance across individual conversational turns. We demonstrate the effectiveness of HammerBench by evaluating several leading LLMs and uncovering key performance trends. Our experiments reveal that different types of parameter name errors are a significant source of failure across different interaction scenarios, highlighting critical areas for further improvement in LLM robustness for mobile assistant applications.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tool learning. In real-world scenarios, user queries are often ambiguous and incomplete, requiring effective clarification. However, existing interactive clarification approaches face two critical limitations: reliance on manually constructed datasets, which inherently constrains training data scale and diversity, and lack of error correction mechanisms during multi-turn clarification, leading to error accumulation that compromises both accuracy and efficiency. We present AskToAct, which addresses these challenges by exploiting the structural mapping between queries and their tool invocation solutions. Our key insight is that tool parameters naturally represent explicit user intents. By systematically removing key parameters from queries while retaining them as ground truth, we enable automated construction of high-quality training data. We further enhance model robustness through error-correction pairs and selective masking, enabling dynamic error detection during clarification interactions. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that AskToAct significantly outperforms existing approaches, achieving above 57% accuracy in recovering critical unspecified intents and enhancing clarification efficiency by an average of 10.46% while maintaining high accuracy in tool invocation. Our framework exhibits robust performance across different model architectures and successfully generalizes to entirely unseen APIs without additional training, achieving performance comparable to GPT-4o with substantially fewer computational resources.

Generating step-by-step “chain-of-thought” rationales has proven effective for improving the performance of large language models on complex reasoning tasks. However, applying such techniques to structured tasks, such as text-to-SQL, remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we introduce Self-Taught Reasoner for text-to-SQL (STaR-SQL), a novel approach that reframes SQL query generation as a reasoning-driven process. Our method prompts the LLM to produce detailed reasoning steps for SQL queries and fine-tunes it on rationales that lead to correct outcomes. Unlike traditional methods, STaR-SQL dedicates additional test-time computation to reasoning, thereby positioning LLMs as spontaneous reasoners rather than mere prompt-based agents. To further scale the inference process, we incorporate an outcome-supervised reward model (ORM) as a verifier, which enhances SQL query accuracy. Experimental results on the challenging Spider benchmark demonstrate that STaR-SQL significantly improves text-to-SQL performance, achieving an execution accuracy of 86.6%. This surpasses a few-shot baseline by 31.6% and a baseline fine-tuned to predict answers directly by 18.0%. Additionally, STaR-SQL outperforms agent-like prompting methods that leverage more powerful yet closed-source models such as GPT-4. These findings underscore the potential of reasoning-augmented training for structured tasks and open the door to extending self-improving reasoning models to text-to-SQL generation and beyond.