Autonomous agents based on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving to handle multi-turn tasks, but ensuring their trustworthiness remains a critical challenge. A fundamental pillar of this trustworthiness is calibration, which refers to an agent’s ability to express confidence that reliably reflects its actual performance. While calibration is well-established for static models, its dynamics in tool-integrated agentic workflows remain under-explored. In this work, we systematically investigate verbalized calibration in tool-use agents, revealing a fundamental confidence dichotomy driven by tool type. Specifically, our pilot study identifies that evidence tools (e.g., web search) systematically induce severe overconfidence due to inherent noise in retrieved information, while verification tools (e.g., code interpreters) can ground reasoning through deterministic feedback and mitigate miscalibration. To robustly improve calibration across tool types, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning framework that jointly optimizes task accuracy and calibration, supported by a holistic benchmark of reward designs. We demonstrate that our trained agents not only achieve superior calibration but also exhibit robust generalization from local training environments to noisy web settings and to distinct domains such as mathematical reasoning. Our results highlight the necessity of domain-specific calibration strategies for tool-use agents. More broadly, this work establishes a foundation for building self-aware agents that can reliably communicate uncertainty in high-stakes, real-world deployments.

Current large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated emerging capabilities in social intelligence tasks, including implicature resolution and theory-of-mind reasoning, both of which require substantial pragmatic understanding. However, how LLMs acquire this pragmatic competence throughout the training process remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce ALTPRAG, a dataset grounded in the pragmatic concept of alternatives, to evaluate whether LLMs at different training stages can accurately infer nuanced speaker intentions. Each instance pairs two equally plausible yet pragmatically divergent continuations and requires the model to (i) infer the speaker’s intended meaning and (ii) explain when and why a speaker would choose one utterance over its alternative, thus directly probing pragmatic competence through contrastive reasoning. We systematically evaluate 22 LLMs across three key training stages: after pre-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and preference optimization, to examine the development of pragmatic competence. Our results show that even base models exhibit notable sensitivity to pragmatic cues, which improves consistently with increases in model and data scale. Additionally, SFT and RLHF contribute further gains, particularly in cognitive-pragmatic scenarios. These findings highlight pragmatic competence as an emergent and compositional property of LLM training and offer new insights for aligning models with human communicative norms.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) often suffer from hallucinations, particularly errors in object existence, attributes, or relations, which undermine their reliability. We introduce TACO (Verified Atomic Confidence Estimation), a simple framework that mitigates hallucinations through self-verification and confidence calibration without relying on external vision experts. TACO decomposes responses into atomic queries, paraphrases them to reduce sensitivity to wording, and estimates confidence using self-consistency (black-box) or self-confidence (gray-box) aggregation, before refining answers with a language model. Experiments on five benchmarks (POPE, MME, HallusionBench, AMBER, and MM-Hal Bench) with two MLLMs (LLaVA-1.5-7B and CogVLM2) show that TACO consistently outperforms direct prompting and Visual Contrastive Decoding, reduces systematic biases, and improves confidence calibration, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing the faithfulness of MLLMs.

Code-switching is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon in global communication, yet modern information retrieval systems remain predominantly designed for, and evaluated within, monolingual contexts. To bridge this critical disconnect, we present a holistic study dedicated to code-switching IR. We introduce CSR-L (Code-Switching Retrieval benchmark-Lite), constructing a dataset via human annotation to capture the authentic naturalness of mixed-language queries. Our evaluation across statistical, dense, and late-interaction paradigms reveals that code-switching acts as a fundamental performance bottleneck, degrading the effectiveness of even robust multilingual models. We demonstrate that this failure stems from substantial divergence in the embedding space between pure and code-switched text. Scaling this investigation, we propose CS-MTEB, a comprehensive benchmark covering 11 diverse tasks, where we observe performance declines of up to 27%. Finally, we show that standard multilingual techniques like vocabulary expansion are insufficient to resolve these deficits completely. These findings underscore the fragility of current systems and establish code-switching as a crucial frontier for future IR optimization.

LLM agents are increasingly used for social simulation, yet emotion is often treated as a transient cue, causing emotional amnesia and weak long-horizon continuity. We present Sentipolis, a framework for emotionally stateful agents that integrates continuous Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) representation, dual-speed emotion dynamics, and emotion–memory coupling. Across thousands of interactions over multiple base models and evaluators, Sentipolis improves emotionally grounded behavior, boosting communication, and emotional continuity. Gains are model-dependent: believability increases for higher-capacity models but can drop for smaller ones, and emotion-awareness can mildly reduce adherence to social norms, reflecting a human-like tension between emotion-driven behavior and rule compliance in social simulation. Network-level diagnostics show reciprocal, moderately clustered, and temporally stable relationship structures, supporting the study of cumulative social dynamics such as alliance formation and gradual relationship change.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit uneven performance across languages. In language-specific applications, practitioners often rely on target-language corpora or cross-lingual transfer to achieve better performance. However, traditional linguistic typology, commonly used as a transfer language selection strategy in previous studies, may not align with LLM’s perception of language similarity. This work proposes **LLM-based language similarity** as a novel perspective for selecting effective fine-tuning languages. We construct a framework to quantify the similarity within each language pair through both the lenses of **language-specific performance patterns** and **cross-lingual transferability**, ultimately deriving three similarity score matrices. Moreover, we observe a counter-intuitive phenomenon: **super-additive transfer effect**, where fine-tuning on a certain language yields higher performance than fine-tuning directly on the target language. Additionally, due to the absence of an existing dataset meeting our experimental requirements, we construct and release **M4CQ-Pro** dataset, which features domain-diverse distribution of **135** tasks and content consistency across **31** languages (including over 20 medium- and low-resource languages), with 61518 manually reviewed high-quality questions per language. We evaluate our approach on representative multilingual LLMs and results show that all three LLM-based similarity measures effectively guide fine-tuning language selection, outperforming traditional linguistic similarity, with the integrated measure achieving the best results. Our approach provides not only **a novel perspective on language similarity**, but also **practical baselines for selecting fine-tuning languages**.

Existing large language model (LLM) evaluation benchmarks primarily focus on English, while current multilingual tasks lack parallel questions that specifically assess cross-lingual reasoning abilities. This dual limitation makes it challenging to assess LLMs’ performance in the multilingual setting comprehensively. To fill this gap, we introduce MMLU-ProX, a comprehensive benchmark covering 29 languages, built on an English benchmark. Each language version consists of 11,829 identical questions, enabling direct cross-lingual comparisons. Additionally, to meet efficient evaluation needs, we provide a lite version containing 658 questions per language. To ensure the high quality of MMLU-ProX, we employ a rigorous development process that involves multiple powerful LLMs for translation, followed by expert review to ensure accurate expression, consistent terminology, and cultural relevance. Building on this, we systematically evaluate 36 state-of-the-art LLMs, including reasoning-enhanced and multilingual-optimized LLMs. The results reveal significant disparities in the multilingual capabilities of LLMs: While they perform well in high-resource languages, their performance declines markedly in low-resource languages, particularly for African languages. Through MMLU-ProX, we aim to advance the development of more inclusive AI systems and promote equitable access to technology across global contexts.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks by leveraging increased test-time computation and exhibiting behaviors reminiscent of human-like self-reflection. While LRMs show a clear capacity for valuable self-reflection, how this ability interacts with other model behaviors remains underexplored. We investigate this connection by analyzing verbalized confidence, how models articulate their certainty, as a lens into the nature of self-reflection in LRMs. We find that supervised fine-tuning on reasoning traces (i.e., distillation) and reinforcement learning can improve verbalized calibration in reasoning-intensive settings in a progressive, laddered fashion. However, our results also indicate that reasoning models may possess a diminished awareness of their own knowledge boundaries, as evidenced by significantly lower “I don’t know” response rates on factuality benchmarks. Moreover, we examine the relationship between verbalized confidence and reasoning chains, finding that models tend to express higher confidence when providing shorter or less elaborate reasoning. Our findings highlight how reasoning-oriented training can enhance performance in reasoning-centric tasks while potentially incurring a reasoning tax, a cost reflected in the model’s reduced ability to accurately recognize the limits of its own knowledge in small-scale models. More broadly, our work showcases how this erosion of knowledge boundaries can compromise model faithfulness, as models grow more confident without a commensurate understanding of when they should abstain.

Uncertainty quantification is essential for assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of modern AI systems. Among existing approaches, verbalized uncertainty, where models express their confidence through natural language, has emerged as a lightweight and interpretable solution in large language models (LLMs). However, its effectiveness in vision-language models (VLMs) remains insufficiently studied. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of verbalized confidence in VLMs, spanning three model categories, four task domains, and three evaluation scenarios. Our results show that current VLMs often display notable miscalibration across diverse tasks and settings. Notably, visual reasoning models (i.e., thinking with images) consistently exhibit better calibration, suggesting that modality-specific reasoning is critical for reliable uncertainty estimation. To further address calibration challenges, we introduce Visual Confidence-Aware Prompting, a two-stage prompting strategy that improves confidence alignment in multimodal settings. Overall, our study highlights the inherent miscalibration in VLMs across modalities. More broadly, our findings underscore the fundamental importance of modality alignment and model faithfulness in advancing reliable multimodal systems.