arXiv:2603.03297v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time Training enables model adaptation using only test questions and offers a promising paradigm for improving the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs). However, it faces two major challenges: test questions are often highly difficult, making self-generated pseudo-labels unreliable, and existing methods lack effective mechanisms to adapt to a model's specific reasoning weaknesses, leading to inefficient learning. To address these issues, we propose \textbf{TTSR}, a self-reflective test-time self-evolving training framework. TTSR employs a single pretrained language model that alternates between the roles of a \textit{Student} and a \textit{Teacher} at test time. The Student focuses on solving problems and learning from synthesized variant questions, while the Teacher analyzes the Student's failed reasoning trajectories, summarizes recurring reasoning weaknesses, and synthesizes targeted variant questions accordingly. This process guides the model to improve within a learnable regime through a continual self-evolving loop. Experimental results on multiple challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that TTSR consistently improves reasoning performance and generalizes well across different model backbones and general-domain reasoning tasks. These findings suggest that teacher-mediated self-reflection provides an effective pathway for stable and continual reasoning improvement at test time.

arXiv:2602.18446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.