arXiv:2605.23939v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Web agents require both high-level reasoning (for task decomposition) and low-level interactions (for page elements manipulation) to conduct different tasks. However, these knowledge types differ fundamentally: reasoning knowledge (e.g., booking a flight requires first searching for routes) is abstract and transferable across websites, while interaction knowledge (e.g., clicking the Search button at a specific coordinate on Site A) depends heavily on page-specific contexts. Existing methods store experiences uniformly. This creates a dilemma: abstract representations lose executability on concrete pages, while concrete representations fail to generalize across domains. This entanglement limits capability accumulation: on new websites, agents either fail to recognize reusable task logic due to surface-level differences or attempt infeasible actions from outdated page structures. To disentangle them, we propose DRIVE, a dual-level skill modeling framework separating historical experience into natural language reasoning skills, which capture transferable task logic, and programmatic interaction skills, grounding abstract actions to executable operations. A scene-aware coordination mechanism adaptively retrieves and invokes these dual-level skills based on task semantics. DRIVE also uses skill-level reflection to identify hierarchy-specific failure modes, enabling targeted skill library expansion and refinement. Experiments across five WebArena domains show DRIVE attains an average task success rate of 52.8%, exceeding the skill-free baseline by 7.3 percentage points. Further ablations show reasoning and interaction skills provide distinct, complementary benefits, supporting separation of transferable task logic from executable page-level operations.

arXiv:2605.24636v2 Announce Type: new Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) hold transformative potential for medicine, their reasoning robustness and safety in real-world clinical scenarios remain critically underexplored, particularly in dentistry. Here we introduce GlobalDentBench, the first multinational dental benchmark, featuring a taxonomy that encompasses 14 dental specialties across 88 countries and regions spanning six continents. The benchmark comprises 8,978 expert-validated questions across three formats (multiple-choice, short-answer, and case-based questions) and assesses three progressive reasoning levels: knowledge recall (L1), routine reasoning (L2), and individualized reasoning (L3). To ensure data quality, the automated construction framework was calibrated by six senior dentists, achieving expert agreement rates of 99.98% for multiple-choice and short-answer questions and 96.78% for the more complex case-based questions. Evaluation of 12 frontier LLMs on GlobalDentBench revealed a sharp, stepwise performance degradation with increasing reasoning complexity. Specifically, accuracy plummeted from 81.34% on multiple-choice to 64.53% on short-answer and 22.34% on case-based questions, while declining markedly from 74.01% at L1 to 55.64% at L2 and 35.71% at L3. More critically, risk analysis of real-world dental cases demonstrated an alarming overall unsafe rate of 31.01% in LLM-generated clinical recommendations, with 4.51% posing risks of irreversible patient harm and risks particularly pronounced in specialties such as orthodontics. These findings expose fundamental limitations in the medical reasoning and safety of current LLMs. Consequently, GlobalDentBench provides a scalable foundation for trustworthy clinical AI evaluation, underscoring the urgent need for rigorous validation before the safe deployment of these models in healthcare.

arXiv:2605.24953v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Industrial asset operations and maintenance question answering is inherently multi-turn, iterative, and highly dependent on external tool invocation. However, the conventional plan-execute single-agent architecture exhibits clear limitations in maintaining cross-turn context, and reusing intermediate results. In this paper, we present a multi-turn dialog system designed for industrial scenarios based on a supervisor-specialist multi-agent architecture. To alleviate tool invocation bottlenecks, the system incorporates structured artifact reuse, dynamic replanning, and parallel tool execution. Evaluation results show that our system achieves better response quality compared with the baseline, with planning effectiveness increasing by 54.5% and task completion improving by 37.8%. System profiling further shows that cross-turn artifact reuse effectively reduces redundant tool invocation, decreasing the tool-time share from 47.3% to 26.3% and making turns 2-5 approximately 4.2x faster than the first turn.

arXiv:2605.25246v2 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for optimization modeling and solver-code generation, yet practical operations research and optimization problems often require a harder capability: designing scalable algorithms that exploit problem structure and outperform direct formulation-and-solve baselines. Existing benchmarks are limited to small or simplified examples far below real-world scale and complexity. We introduce FrontierOR, among the first benchmarks to systematically evaluate LLM-based efficient algorithm design for realistic large-scale optimization problems. FrontierOR includes 180 tasks derived from methodologically diverse papers published in top-tier operations research venues, each with standardized instances and a hidden, expert-verified evaluation suite. We evaluate seven LLMs spanning frontier, cost-effective, and open-source models both in one-shot and test-time evolution settings. The results reveal that frontier models still struggle to move from executable formulations to efficient optimization algorithms: the strongest one-shot model outperforms Gurobi in only 31% of cases in both solution quality and computational efficiency, and even strong coding agents with test-time evolution achieve only 50% on selected hard tasks. FrontierOR establishes a practical evaluation platform for LLM-based optimization algorithm design, which enables future LLMs and agents to be systematically tested on whether they can move beyond correct formulation toward a feasible, high-quality, and efficient algorithm.

arXiv:2605.20025v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a \textsc{Pivot}/\textsc{Refine} decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.