Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved strong performance enhancement through scaling test time computation, but due to the inherent limitations of the underlying language models, they still have shortcomings in tasks that require precise computation and extensive knowledge reserves. Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) has emerged as a promising paradigm that incorporates tool call and execution within the reasoning trajectory. Although recent works have released some powerful open-source TIR models, our analysis reveals that these models still suffer from critical deficiencies. We find that when the reasoning of the model conflicts with the tool results, the model tends to believe in its own reasoning. And there are cases where the tool results are correct but are ignored by the model, resulting in incorrect answers, which we define as “Tool Ignored”. This indicates that the model does not know when to trust or ignore the tool. To overcome these limitations, We introduce Adaptive Tool Trust Calibration (ATTC), a novel framework that guides the model to adaptively choose to trust or ignore the tool results based on the confidence score of generated code blocks. The experimental results from various open-source TIR models of different sizes and across multiple datasets demonstrate that ATTC effectively reduces the "Tool Ignored" issue, resulting in a performance increase of 4.1% to 7.5%.

Evaluating the writing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge due to the multidimensional nature of writing skills and the limitations of existing metrics. LLM’s performance in thousand-words level and open-ended writing is inadequately assessed by traditional reference-based metrics or modern LLM-as-a-judge methods. We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW), to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation. ToW incorporates a tree-structured workflow by explicitly modeling the aggregation weights of sub-features. We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing **12** genres and **1302** instructions across three task categories: contextual **completion**, outline-**guided** writing, and **open**-ended generation. ToW successfully mitigates the biases, achieving a **0.93** Pearson correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, we detect that both overlap-based text generation metrics and popular LLM-as-a-judge practices are vulnerable to textual disturbances, while ToW is robust to them. We also uncover a negative correlation between input length and content-related scores in the Guide task, showcasing that it cannot be simply improved by input-side information piling.

Fine-grained entity typing (FET) aims to deduce specific semantic types of the entity mentions in the text. Modern methods for FET mainly focus on learning what a certain type looks like. And few works directly model the type differences, that is, let models know the extent that which one type is different from others. To alleviate this problem, we propose a type-enriched hierarchical contrastive strategy for FET. Our method can directly model the differences between hierarchical types and improve the ability to distinguish multi-grained similar types. On the one hand, we embed type into entity contexts to make type information directly perceptible. On the other hand, we design a constrained contrastive strategy on the hierarchical structure to directly model the type differences, which can simultaneously perceive the distinguishability between types at different granularity. Experimental results on three benchmarks, BBN, OntoNotes, and FIGER show that our method achieves significant performance on FET by effectively modeling type differences.