arXiv:2602.17547v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper introduces KLong, an open-source LLM agent trained to solve extremely long-horizon tasks. The principle is to first cold-start the model via trajectory-splitting SFT, then scale it via progressive RL training. Specifically, we first activate basic agentic abilities of a base model with a comprehensive SFT recipe. Then, we introduce Research-Factory, an automated pipeline that generates high-quality training data by collecting research papers and constructing evaluation rubrics. Using this pipeline, we build thousands of long-horizon trajectories distilled from Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Thinking). To train with these extremely long trajectories, we propose a new trajectory-splitting SFT, which preserves early context, progressively truncates later context, and maintains overlap between sub-trajectories. In addition, to further improve long-horizon task-solving capability, we propose a novel progressive RL, which schedules training into multiple stages with progressively extended timeouts. Experiments demonstrate the superiority and generalization of KLong, as shown in Figure 1. Notably, our proposed KLong (106B) surpasses Kimi K2 Thinking (1T) by 11.28% on PaperBench, and the performance improvement generalizes to other coding benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and MLE-bench.

arXiv:2510.15746v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Ideal or real - that is the question.In this work, we explore whether principles from game theory can be effectively applied to the evaluation of large language models (LLMs). This inquiry is motivated by the growing inadequacy of conventional evaluation practices, which often rely on fixed-format tasks with reference answers and struggle to capture the nuanced, subjective, and open-ended nature of modern LLM behavior. To address these challenges, we propose a novel alternative: automatic mutual evaluation, where LLMs assess each other's output through self-play and peer review. These peer assessments are then systematically compared with human voting behavior to evaluate their alignment with human judgment. Our framework incorporates game-theoretic voting algorithms to aggregate peer reviews, enabling a principled investigation into whether model-generated rankings reflect human preferences. Empirical results reveal both convergences and divergences between theoretical predictions and human evaluations, offering valuable insights into the promises and limitations of mutual evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to jointly integrate mutual evaluation, game-theoretic aggregation, and human-grounded validation for evaluating the capabilities of LLMs.