Reasoning has long been viewed as an emergent property of large language models (LLMs). However, recent studies challenge this assumption, showing that small language models (SLMs) can also achieve competitive reasoning performance. This paper introduces ThinkSLM, the first extensive benchmark to systematically evaluate and study the reasoning abilities of SLMs trained from scratch or derived from LLMs through quantization, pruning, and distillation. We first establish a reliable evaluation criterion comparing available methods and LLM judges against our human evaluations. Then we present a study evaluating 72 diverse SLMs from six major model families across 17 reasoning benchmarks. We repeat all our experiments three times to ensure a robust assessment. Our findings show that: 1) reasoning ability in SLMs is strongly influenced by training methods and data quality rather than solely model scale; 2) quantization preserves reasoning capability, while pruning significantly disrupts it; 3) larger models consistently exhibit higher robustness against adversarial perturbations and intermediate reasoning, but certain smaller models closely match or exceed the larger models’ performance. Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning. Instead, we foresee a future where SLMs with strong reasoning capabilities can be developed through structured training or post-training compression. Our ThinkSLM Leaderboard is publicly available at: https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/thinkslm.github.io/.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved significantly in their reasoning through extensive training on massive datasets. However, relying solely on additional data for improvement is becoming increasingly impractical, highlighting the need for models to autonomously enhance their reasoning without external supervision. In this paper, we propose Debate, Train, Evolve (DTE), a novel ground truth-free training framework that uses multi-agent debate traces to evolve a single language model. We also introduce a new prompting strategy Reflect-Critique-Refine, to improve debate quality by explicitly instructing agents to critique and refine their reasoning. Extensive evaluations on seven reasoning benchmarks with six open-weight models show that our DTE framework achieve substantial improvements, with an average accuracy gain of 8.92% on the challenging GSM-PLUS dataset. Furthermore, we observe strong cross-domain generalization, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% on all other benchmarks, suggesting that our method captures general reasoning capabilities. Our framework code and trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/ctrl-gaurav/Debate-Train-Evolve.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating unstructured text. However, they struggle with producing structured output while maintaining accuracy in zero-shot information extraction (IE), such as named entity recognition (NER) and relation extraction (RE). To address these challenges, we propose CROSSAGENTIE, a multi-agent framework that enhances zero-shot IE through multi-agent LLM collaboration. CROSSAGENTIE refines LLM predictions iteratively through two mechanisms: intra-group cross-type debate, which resolves entity-label conflicts through context-based evidence and confidence aggregation, and inter-group cross-task debate, where NER and RE mutually refine outputs via bidirectional feedback. Furthermore, we introduce template fine-tuning, distilling high-confidence multi-agent outputs into a single model, significantly reducing inference cost while preserving accuracy. Experiments across five NER and five RE datasets show that CROSSAGENTIE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art zero-shot baselines by a large margin. CROSSAGENTIE effectively addresses LLMs limitations in structured prediction with an effective and efficient approach for zero-shot information extraction.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems have shown remarkable performance in tasks such as reasoning, planning, and decision-making. However, their applicability is limited by challenges such as high computational costs and robustness issues. In this work, we identify and systematically evaluate a critical yet overlooked challenge: sycophancy, where agents reinforce each other’s responses instead of critically engaging with the debate. This behavior inflates computational costs by requiring additional debate rounds to reach consensus, limiting the efficiency of multi-agent LLM systems. Through experiments on six benchmark reasoning datasets across three models, we analyze the impact of sycophancy and its role in reducing the reliability of multi-agent debate. Motivated by our findings, we propose CONSENSAGENT, a novel framework that dynamically refines prompts based on agent interactions to mitigate sycophancy. CONSENSAGENT improves accuracy of the debate while maintaining efficiency. It significantly outperforms both single-agent and multi-agent baselines, achieving state-of-the-art results across all benchmark datasets. Our findings highlight the crucial role of structured prompt optimization in multi-agent setups and establish a foundation for more reliable, efficient multi-agent LLM systems in real-world applications.

The application of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare holds significant promise for enhancing clinical decision-making, medical research, and patient care. However, their integration into real-world clinical settings raises critical concerns around trustworthiness, particularly around dimensions of truthfulness, privacy, safety, robustness, fairness, and explainability. These dimensions are essential for ensuring that LLMs generate reliable, unbiased, and ethically sound outputs. While researchers have recently begun developing benchmarks and evaluation frameworks to assess LLM trustworthiness, the trustworthiness of LLMs in healthcare remains underexplored, lacking a systematic review that provides a comprehensive understanding and future insights. This survey addresses that gap by providing a comprehensive review of current methodologies and solutions aimed at mitigating risks across key trust dimensions. We analyze how each dimension affects the reliability and ethical deployment of healthcare LLMs, synthesize ongoing research efforts and identify critical gaps in existing approaches. We also identify emerging challenges posed by evolving paradigms, such as multi-agent collaboration, multi-modal reasoning, and the development of small open-source medical models. Our goal is to guide future research toward more trustworthy, transparent, and clinically viable LLMs.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have become increasingly powerful in multimodal learning by enabling modular specialization across modalities. However, their effectiveness remains unclear when additional modalities introduce more noise than complementary information. Existing approaches, such as the Partial Information Decomposition, struggle to scale beyond two modalities and lack the resolution needed for instance-level control. We propose **B**eyond **T**wo-modality **W**eighting (**BTW**), a bi-level, non-parametric weighting framework that combines instance-level Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence and modality-level mutual information (MI) to dynamically adjust modality importance during training. Our method does not require additional parameters and can be applied to an arbitrary number of modalities. Specifically, BTW computes per-example KL weights by measuring the divergence between each unimodal and the current multimodal prediction, and modality-wide MI weights by estimating global alignment between unimodal and multimodal outputs. Extensive experiments on sentiment regression and clinical classification demonstrate that our method significantly improves regression performance and multiclass classification accuracy.

Multi-hop question answering (MHQA) requires a model to retrieve and integrate information from multiple passages to answer a complex question. Recent systems leverage the power of large language models and integrate evidence retrieval with reasoning prompts (e.g., chain-of-thought reasoning) for the MHQA task. However, the complexities in the question types (bridge v.s. comparison questions) and the reasoning types (sequential v.s. parallel reasonings) require more novel and fine-grained prompting methods to enhance the performance of MHQA under the zero-shot setting.In this paper, we propose StoC-ToT, a stochastic tree-of-thought reasoning prompting method with constrained decoding for MHQA and conduct a detailed comparison with other reasoning prompts on different question types and reasoning types. Specifically, we construct a tree-like reasoning structure by prompting the model to break down the original question into smaller sub-questions to form different reasoning paths. In addition, we prompt the model to provide a probability estimation for each reasoning path at each reasoning step. At answer time, we conduct constrained decoding on the model to generate more grounded answers and reduce hallucination. Experiments comparing StoC-ToT with on two MHQA datasets and five large language models showed that outperforms other reasoning prompts by a significant margin.

The global escalation in emergency department patient visits poses significant challenges to efficient clinical management, particularly in clinical triage. Traditionally managed by human professionals, clinical triage is susceptible to substantial variability and high workloads. Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate promising reasoning and understanding capabilities, directly applying them to clinical triage remains challenging due to the complex and dynamic nature of the clinical triage task. To address these issues, we introduce TriageAgent, a novel heterogeneous multi-agent framework designed to enhance collaborative decision-making in clinical triage. TriageAgent leverages LLMs for role-playing, incorporating self-confidence and early-stopping mechanisms in multi-round discussions to improve document reasoning and classification precision for triage tasks. In addition, TriageAgent employs the medical Emergency Severity Index (ESI) handbook through a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach to provide precise clinical knowledge and integrates both coarse- and fine-grained ESI-level predictions in the decision-making process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TriageAgent outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based methods on three clinical triage test sets. Furthermore, we have released the first public benchmark dataset for clinical triage with corresponding ESI levels and human expert performance for comparison.

The mission of open knowledge graph (KG) completion is to draw new findings from known facts. Existing works that augment KG completion require either (1) factual triples to enlarge the graph reasoning space or (2) manually designed prompts to extract knowledge from a pre-trained language model (PLM), exhibiting limited performance and requiring expensive efforts from experts. To this end, we propose TagReal that automatically generates quality query prompts and retrieves support information from large text corpora to probe knowledge from PLM for KG completion. The results show that TagReal achieves state-of-the-art performance on two benchmark datasets. We find that TagReal has superb performance even with limited training data, outperforming existing embedding-based, graph-based, and PLM-based methods.

Structured chemical reaction information plays a vital role for chemists engaged in laboratory work and advanced endeavors such as computer-aided drug design. Despite the importance of extracting structured reactions from scientific literature, data annotation for this purpose is cost-prohibitive due to the significant labor required from domain experts. Consequently, the scarcity of sufficient training data poses an obstacle to the progress of related models in this domain. In this paper, we propose ReactIE, which combines two weakly supervised approaches for pre-training. Our method utilizes frequent patterns within the text as linguistic cues to identify specific characteristics of chemical reactions. Additionally, we adopt synthetic data from patent records as distant supervision to incorporate domain knowledge into the model. Experiments demonstrate that ReactIE achieves substantial improvements and outperforms all existing baselines.