Reward models (RMs) play a critical role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Yet in the domain of tool learning, the lack of RMs specifically designed for function-calling tasks has limited progress toward more capable agentic AI. We introduce ToolRM, a family of lightweight reward models tailored for general tool-use scenarios. To build these models, we propose a novel pipeline that constructs high-quality pairwise preference data using rule-based scoring and multidimensional sampling. This yields ToolPref-Pairwise-30K, a diverse, balanced, and challenging preference dataset that supports both generative and discriminative reward modeling. We also introduce TRBench_BFCL, a benchmark built on the agent evaluation suite BFCL to evaluate RMs on tool calling tasks. Trained on our constructed data, models from the Qwen3-4B/8B series achieve up to 17.94% higher accuracy, substantially outperforming frontier LLMs and RMs in pairwise reward judgments. Beyond training objectives, generative ToolRM generalizes to broader critique tasks, including Best-of-N sampling and self-correction. Experiments on ACEBench highlight its effectiveness and efficiency, enabling inference-time scaling while reducing output token usage by over 66%. Its support for downstream RL training further validates its practical utility. We release data to facilitate future research.

Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) and LLM-as-a-Judge exhibit deceptive alignment by producing correct judgments for incorrect reasons, as they are trained and evaluated to prioritize Outcome Accuracy, which undermines their ability to generalize during RLHF. We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model’s reasoning process and human judgment. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models and detects deceptive alignment, while outcome accuracy falls short in both respects. To mitigate this gap, we introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training. Our training method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RM-Bench (87.1%) and JudgeBench (82%), surpassing outcome-only baselines by an average of 5%. Using RM during RLHF, our method effectively improves performance as demonstrated on Arena Hard v2, notably yielding a 7% improvement in creative writing tasks. Further analysis confirms that our method escapes the deceptive alignment trap, effectively reversing the decline in rationale consistency observed in outcome-only training.

Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable prowess in various tasks necessitating sophisticated cognitive behaviors. Nevertheless, a paradoxical performance discrepancy is observed, where these models underperform in seemingly elementary tasks like relation extraction and event extraction due to two issues in conventional evaluation. (1) The imprecision of existing evaluation metrics that struggle to effectively gauge semantic consistency between model outputs and ground truth, and (2) The inherent incompleteness of evaluation benchmarks, primarily due to restrictive human annotation schemas, resulting in underestimated LLM performances. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. This method innovatively utilizes LLMs, fine-tuned through subjective question correction data, to refine matching between model outputs and golden labels. Additionally, by incorporating a Natural Language Inference (NLI) model, SQC-Score enriches golden labels, addressing benchmark incompleteness by acknowledging correct yet previously omitted answers. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics. Utilizing SQC-Score, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the state-of-the-art LLMs and provide insights for future research for information extraction. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at our <a href=https://github.com/THU-KEG/SQC-Score> GitHub repository </a>.

Nested Event Extraction (NEE) aims to extract complex event structures where an event contains other events as its arguments recursively. Nested events involve a kind of Pivot Elements (PEs) that simultaneously act as arguments of outer-nest events and as triggers of inner-nest events, and thus connect them into nested structures. This special characteristic of PEs brings challenges to existing NEE methods, as they cannot well cope with the dual identities of PEs. Therefore, this paper proposes a new model, called PerNee, which extracts nested events mainly based on recognizing PEs. Specifically, PerNee first recognizes the triggers of both inner-nest and outer-nest events and further recognizes the PEs via classifying the relation type between trigger pairs. The model uses prompt learning to incorporate information from both event types and argument roles for better trigger and argument representations to improve NEE performance. Since existing NEE datasets (e.g., Genia11) are limited to specific domains and contain a narrow range of event types with nested structures, we systematically categorize nested events in the generic domain and construct a new NEE dataset, called ACE2005-Nest. Experimental results demonstrate that PerNee consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance on ACE2005-Nest, Genia11, and Genia13. The ACE2005-Nest dataset and the code of the PerNee model are available at https://github.com/waysonren/PerNee.

Providing knowledge documents for large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising solution to update the static knowledge inherent in their parameters. However, knowledge in the document may conflict with the memory of LLMs due to outdated or incorrect knowledge in the LLMs’ parameters. This leads to the necessity of examining the capability of LLMs to assimilate supplemental external knowledge that conflicts with their memory. While previous studies have explained to what extent LLMs extract conflicting knowledge from the provided text, they neglect the necessity to <b>reason</b> with conflicting knowledge. Furthermore, there lack a detailed analysis on strategies to enable LLMs to resolve conflicting knowledge via prompting, decoding strategy, and supervised fine-tuning. To address these limitations, we construct a new dataset, dubbed KNOT, for knowledge conflict resolution examination in the form of question answering. KNOT facilitates in-depth analysis by dividing reasoning with conflicting knowledge into three levels: (1) Direct Extraction, which directly extracts conflicting knowledge to answer questions. (2) Explicit Reasoning, which reasons with conflicting knowledge when the reasoning path is explicitly provided in the question. (3) Implicit Reasoning, where reasoning with conflicting knowledge requires LLMs to infer the reasoning path independently to answer questions. We also conduct extensive experiments on KNOT to establish empirical guidelines for LLMs to utilize conflicting knowledge in complex circumstances. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at our <a href=https://github.com/THU-KEG/KNOT>GitHub repository</a> .

Deep text understanding, which requires the connections between a given document and prior knowledge beyond its text, has been highlighted by many benchmarks in recent years. However, these benchmarks have encountered two major limitations. On the one hand, most of them require human annotation of knowledge, which leads to limited knowledge coverage. On the other hand, they usually use choices or spans in the texts as the answers, which results in narrow answer space. To overcome these limitations, we build a new challenging benchmark named KoRC in this paper. Compared with previous benchmarks, KoRC has two advantages, i.e., broad knowledge coverage and flexible answer format. Specifically, we utilize massive knowledge bases to guide annotators or large language models (LLMs) to construct knowledgable questions. Moreover, we use labels in knowledge bases rather than spans or choices as the final answers. We test state-of-the-art models on KoRC and the experimental results show that the strongest baseline only achieves 68.3% and 30.0% F1 measure in the IID and OOD test set, respectively. These results indicate that deep text understanding is still an unsolved challenge. We will release our dataset and baseline methods upon acceptance.