Agentic learning increasingly hinges on interaction, yet real-world experience is expensive, limited, and often irreversible at inference time. World models promise to mitigate these limitations, but it remains unclear whether large language models can actually serve as reliable world models, and deliver concrete benefits to downstream agents. We investigate these questions in text-based environments, a controlled testbed that reframes language modeling as next-state prediction under interaction. We propose a three-level framework to evaluate LLM-based world models: (i) fidelity and consistency, (ii) scalability and robustness, and (iii) agent utility. Across five representative environments, we show that sufficiently trained world models capture coherent environment dynamics, scale predictably with data and model capacity, and unlock tangible agent improvements—for example, action verification boosts GPT-4o by 5.5% on WebShop, and warm-started RL achieves a 15% gain on SciWorld. Crucially, these benefits hinge on behavioral coverage and environment complexity, sharply characterizing when world modeling meaningfully advances agent learning.

Large vision–language model (LVLM)-based web agents are emerging as powerful automation tools but face severe security risks in real-world deployment. Existing benchmarks offer limited coverage, typically isolating user-level prompts from environmental threats, thus failing to capture the full spectrum of vulnerabilities. To address this, we present SecureWebArena, the first holistic security benchmark for web agents. SecureWebArena features a unified suite of six realistic web environments with 2,970 adversarial trajectories, covering a structured taxonomy of six attack vectors that span both user-level and environment-level manipulations. Crucially, we introduce a multi-layered evaluation protocol that dissects agent failures across internal reasoning, behavioral execution, and task outcomes, enabling fine-grained risk analysis beyond simple success metrics. Experiments on 9 representative LVLMs reveal universal vulnerabilities to subtle manipulations and uncover significant trade-offs between model specialization and security. SecureWebArena establishes a rigorous foundation for advancing the development of trustworthy web agents.

Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering. However, in long trajectories, agents often trigger excessive and low-quality tool calls, increasing latency and degrading inference performance, making managing tool-use behavior challenging. In this work, we conduct entropy-based pilot experiments and observe a strong positive correlation between entropy reduction and high-quality tool calls. Building on this finding, we propose using entropy reduction as a supervisory signal and design two reward strategies to address the differing needs of optimizing tool-use behavior. Sparse outcome rewards provide coarse, trajectory-level guidance to improve efficiency, while dense process rewards offer fine-grained supervision to enhance performance. Experiments across diverse domains show that both reward designs improve tool-use behavior: the former reduces tool calls by 72.07% compared to the average of baselines, while the latter improves performance by 22.27%. These results position entropy reduction as a key mechanism for enhancing tool-use behavior, enabling agents to be more adaptive in real-world applications.

While scaling laws for large language models (LLMs) during pre-training have been extensively studied, their behavior under reinforcement learning (RL) post-training remains largely unexplored. This paper investigates the scaling behavior of Large Language Model (LLM) reinforcement learning post-training, focusing on mathematical reasoning. Through experiments across the Qwen2.5 series (0.5B to 72B), we characterize how model scale, data, and compute interact. Our analysis yields four key findings: 1. Larger models consistently demonstrate superior compute and data efficiency. 2. The relationship between model performance and training resources follows a **predictive power-law** across both base and instruction-tuned models. 3. RL learning efficiency exhibits a latent **saturation trend** with increasing model scale. 4. In data-constrained regimes, performance is primarily driven by the **total volume of training data** rather than sample uniqueness. These results offer practical guidelines for scaling reasoning capabilities through reinforcement learning post-training.

Recent works have increasingly applied Large Language Models (LLMs) as agents in financial stock market simulations to test if micro-level behaviors aggregate into macro-level phenomena. However, a crucial question arises: Do LLM agents’ behaviors align with real market participants? This alignment is key to the validity of simulation results. To explore this, we select a financial stock market scenario to test behavioral consistency. Investors are typically classified as fundamental or technical traders, but most simulations fix strategies at initialization, failing to reflect real-world trading dynamics. In this work, we assess whether agents’ strategy switching aligns with financial theory, providing a framework for this evaluation. We operationalize four behavioral-finance drivers—loss aversion, herding, wealth differentiation, and price misalignment—as personality traits set via prompting and stored long-term. In year-long simulations, agents process daily price-volume data, trade under a designated style, and reassess their strategy every 10 trading days. We introduce four alignment metrics and use Mann–Whitney U tests to compare agents’ style-switching behavior with financial theory. Our results show that recent LLMs’ switching behavior is only partially consistent with behavioral-finance theories, highlighting the need for further refinement in aligning agent behavior with financial theory.

The rapid advancement of scientific progress requires innovative tools that can accelerate knowledge discovery. Although recent AI methods, particularly large language models (LLMs), have shown promise in tasks such as hypothesis generation and experimental design, they fall short of replicating the collaborative nature of real-world scientific practices, where diverse experts work together in teams to tackle complex problems. To address the limitations, we propose an LLM-based multi-agent system, i.e., Virtual Scientists (VIRSCI), designed to mimic the teamwork inherent in scientific research. VIRSCI organizes a team of agents to collaboratively generate, evaluate, and refine research ideas. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that this multi-agent approach outperforms the state-of-the-art method in producing novel scientific ideas. We further investigate the collaboration mechanisms that contribute to its tendency to produce ideas with higher novelty, offering valuable insights to guide future research and illuminating pathways toward building a robust system for autonomous scientific discovery. The code is available at https://github.com/open-sciencelab/Virtual-Scientists.

Multi-agent systems have emerged as a promising approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models in complex problem-solving. However, current MAS frameworks are limited by poor flexibility and scalability, with underdeveloped optimization strategies. To address these challenges, we propose ReSo, which integrates task graph generation with a reward-driven two-stage agent selection process. The core of ReSo is the proposed Collaborative Reward Model, which can provide fine-grained reward signals for MAS cooperation for optimization. We also introduce an automated data synthesis framework for generating MAS benchmarks, without human annotations. Experimentally, ReSo matches or outperforms existing methods. ReSo achieves 33.7% and 32.3% accuracy on Math-MAS and SciBench-MAS SciBench, while other methods completely fail. The code and data are available at [Reso](https://github.com/hengzzzhou/ReSo).

Ensuring the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) is crucial. Most studies concentrate on fully pre-trained LLMs to better understand and improve LLMs’ trustworthiness. In this paper, to reveal the untapped potential of pre-training, we pioneer the exploration of LLMs’ trustworthiness during this period, focusing on five key dimensions: reliability, privacy, toxicity, fairness, and robustness. To begin with, we apply linear probing to LLMs. The high probing accuracy suggests that LLMs in early pre-training can already distinguish concepts in each trustworthiness dimension. Therefore, to further uncover the hidden possibilities of pre-training, we extract steering vectors from a LLM’s pre-training checkpoints to enhance the LLM’s trustworthiness. Finally, inspired by the theoretical result that mutual information estimation is bounded by linear probing accuracy, we also probe LLMs with mutual information to investigate the dynamics of trustworthiness during pre-training. We are the first to observe a similar two-phase phenomenon: fitting and compression. This research provides an initial exploration of trustworthiness modeling during LLM pre-training, seeking to unveil new insights and spur further developments in the field.