Xinhe Wang


2026

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities as task-solving agents across interactive domains. However, in complex environments, these agents may need to rely on auxiliary guidance to reduce the search space or make up for limited domain-specific knowledge. Such guidance includes human-provided manuals and demonstrations, retrieved examples from memory or external tools, high-level heuristics, and agent-acquired knowledge from prior interactions. However, this guidance may be imperfect. For example, due to changes in the environment, ambiguous or simplified language, or retrieval errors from external sources, guidance can be incomplete, outdated, or contextually mismatched, potentially causing errors or failures during task execution. To address this, we introduce MIRAGE, a benchmark for MeasurIng Robustness of LLM Agents under Imperfect GuidancE. MIRAGE includes procedurally generated environments in navigation, cooking, and gaming, where both the environment and the auxiliary guidance vary in fidelity and relevance. We further extend MIRAGE to realistic web tasks via WebArena, using noisy or underspecified instructions extracted from demonstrations. Our findings reveal critical failure modes in current LLM agents and motivate future work on improving their robustness under imperfect guidance.
Reasoning benchmarks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) and ARC-AGI are widely used to assess progress in artificial intelligence and are often interpreted as probes of core, so-called “fluid” reasoning abilities. Despite their apparent simplicity for humans, these tasks remain challenging for frontier vision-language models (VLMs), a gap commonly attributed to deficiencies in machine reasoning. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the gap arises primarily from limitations in visual perception rather than from shortcomings in inductive reasoning.To verify this hypothesis, we introduce a two-stage experimental pipeline that explicitly separates perception and reasoning. In the perception stage, each image is independently converted into a natural-language description, while in the reasoning stage a model induces and applies rules using these descriptions. This design prevents leakage of cross-image inductive signals and isolates reasoning from perception bottlenecks. Across three ARC-style datasets, Mini-ARC, ACRE, and Bongard-LOGO, we show that the perception capability is the dominant factor underlying the observed performance gap by comparing the two-stage pipeline with against standard end-to-end one-stage evaluation. Manual inspection of reasoning traces in the VLM outputs further reveals that approximately 80 percent of model failures stem from perception errors. Together, these results demonstrate that ARC-style benchmarks conflate perceptual and reasoning challenges and that observed performance gaps may overstate deficiencies in machine reasoning. Our findings underscore the need for evaluation protocols that disentangle perception from reasoning when assessing progress in machine intelligence.

2025

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong abilities in common-sense reasoning and interactive decision-making, but often struggle with complex, long-horizon planning tasks. Recent techniques have sought to structure LLM outputs using control flow and code to improve planning performance. However, code-based approaches can be error-prone and insufficient for handling ambiguous or unstructured data. To address these challenges, we propose REPL-Plan, an LLM planning approach that is fully code-expressive (it can utilize all the benefits of code) while also being dynamic (it can flexibly adapt from errors and use the LLM for soft reasoning). In REPL-Plan, an LLM solves tasks by interacting with a Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL), which iteratively executes and evaluates code, similar to language shells or interactive code notebooks, allowing the model to flexibly correct errors and handle tasks dynamically. We demonstrate that REPL-Plan achieves strong results across various planning domains compared to previous methods.