arXiv:2601.22776v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-turn tool-integrated reasoning enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve complex tasks through iterative information retrieval. However, current reinforcement learning (RL) frameworks for search-augmented reasoning predominantly rely on sparse outcome-level rewards, leading to a "Double Homogenization Dilemma." This manifests as (1) Process homogenization, where the thinking, reasoning, and tooling involved in generation are ignored. (2) Intra-group homogenization, coarse-grained outcome rewards often lead to inefficiencies in intra-group advantage estimation with methods like Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) during sampling. To address this, we propose Turn-level Stage-aware Policy Optimization (TSPO). TSPO introduces the First-Occurrence Latent Reward (FOLR) mechanism, allocating partial rewards to the step where the ground-truth answer first appears, thereby preserving process-level signals and increasing reward variance within groups without requiring external reward models or any annotations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TSPO significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving average performance gains of 24% and 13.6% on Qwen2.5-3B and 7B models, respectively. Code is available at https://github.com/Flipped-May/TSPO.

arXiv:2604.02368v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.