arXiv:2604.01754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, and whether large language models (LLMs) can meaningfully perform it remains a central question in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. As LLMs are increasingly integrated into scientific workflows, rigorous evaluation of their mathematical capabilities becomes a practical necessity. Existing benchmarks are limited by synthetic settings and data contamination. We present LiveMathematicianBench, a dynamic multiple-choice benchmark for research-level mathematical reasoning built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. By grounding evaluation in newly published theorems, it provides a realistic testbed beyond memorized patterns. The benchmark introduces a thirteen-category logical taxonomy of theorem types (e.g., implication, equivalence, existence, uniqueness), enabling fine-grained evaluation across reasoning forms. It employs a proof-sketch-guided distractor pipeline that uses high-level proof strategies to construct plausible but invalid answer choices reflecting misleading proof directions, increasing sensitivity to genuine understanding over surface-level matching. We also introduce a substitution-resistant mechanism to distinguish answer recognition from substantive reasoning. Evaluation shows the benchmark is far from saturated: Gemini-3.1-pro-preview, the best model, achieves only 43.5%. Under substitution-resistant evaluation, accuracy drops sharply: GPT-5.4 scores highest at 30.6%, while Gemini-3.1-pro-preview falls to 17.6%, below the 20% random baseline. A dual-mode protocol reveals that proof-sketch access yields consistent accuracy gains, suggesting models can leverage high-level proof strategies for reasoning. Overall, LiveMathematicianBench offers a scalable, contamination-resistant testbed for studying research-level mathematical reasoning in LLMs.

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:2603.04334v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present SpotIt+, an open-source tool for evaluating Text-to-SQL systems via bounded equivalence verification. Given a generated SQL query and the ground truth, SpotIt+ actively searches for database instances that differentiate the two queries. To ensure that the generated counterexamples reflect practically relevant discrepancies, we introduce a constraint-mining pipeline that combines rule-based specification mining over example databases with LLM-based validation. Experimental results on the BIRD dataset show that the mined constraints enable SpotIt+ to generate more realistic differentiating databases, while preserving its ability to efficiently uncover numerous discrepancies between generated and gold SQL queries that are missed by standard test-based evaluation.

arXiv:2510.26840v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Community-driven Text-to-SQL evaluation platforms play a pivotal role in tracking the state of the art of Text-to-SQL performance. The reliability of the evaluation process is critical for driving progress in the field. Current evaluation methods are largely test-based, which involves comparing the execution results of a generated SQL query and a human-labeled ground-truth on a static test database. Such an evaluation is optimistic, as two queries can coincidentally produce the same output on the test database while actually being different. In this work, we propose a new alternative evaluation pipeline, called SpotIt, where a formal bounded equivalence verification engine actively searches for a database that differentiates the generated and ground-truth SQL queries. We develop techniques to extend existing verifiers to support a richer SQL subset relevant to Text-to-SQL. A performance evaluation of ten Text-to-SQL methods on the high-profile BIRD dataset suggests that test-based methods can often overlook differences between the generated query and the ground-truth. Further analysis of the verification results reveals a more complex picture of the current Text-to-SQL evaluation.

arXiv:2602.20159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rapid progress in video models has largely focused on visual quality, leaving their reasoning capabilities underexplored. Video reasoning grounds intelligence in spatiotemporally consistent visual environments that go beyond what text can naturally capture, enabling intuitive reasoning over spatiotemporal structure such as continuity, interaction, and causality. However, systematically studying video reasoning and its scaling behavior is hindered by the lack of large-scale training data. To address this gap, we introduce the Very Big Video Reasoning (VBVR) Dataset, an unprecedentedly large-scale resource spanning 200 curated reasoning tasks following a principled taxonomy and over one million video clips, approximately three orders of magnitude larger than existing datasets. We further present VBVR-Bench, a verifiable evaluation framework that moves beyond model-based judging by incorporating rule-based, human-aligned scorers, enabling reproducible and interpretable diagnosis of video reasoning capabilities. Leveraging the VBVR suite, we conduct one of the first large-scale scaling studies of video reasoning and observe early signs of emergent generalization to unseen reasoning tasks. Together, VBVR lays a foundation for the next stage of research in generalizable video reasoning. The data, benchmark toolkit, and models are publicly available at https://video-reason.com/ .

arXiv:2504.18880v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Accurately identifying the synthesis conditions of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) is essential for guiding experimental design, yet remains challenging because relevant information in the literature is often scattered, inconsistent, and difficult to interpret. We present MOFh6, a large language model driven system that reads raw articles or crystal codes and converts them into standardized synthesis tables. It links related descriptions across paragraphs, unifies ligand abbreviations with full names, and outputs structured parameters ready for use. MOFh6 achieved 99% extraction accuracy, resolved 94.1% of abbreviation cases across five major publishers, and maintained a precision of 0.93 +/- 0.01. Processing a full text takes 9.6 s, locating synthesis descriptions 36 s, with 100 papers processed for USD 4.24. By replacing static database lookups with real-time extraction, MOFh6 reshapes MOF synthesis research, accelerating the conversion of literature knowledge into practical synthesis protocols and enabling scalable, data-driven materials discovery.

arXiv:2602.13625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Anthropomorphic design is routinely used to make conversational agents more approachable and engaging. Yet its influence on users' perceptions remains poorly understood. Drawing on psychological theories, we propose that anthropomorphism influences risk perception via two complementary forms of trust, and that domain knowledge moderates these relationships. To test our model, we conducted a large-scale online experiment (N = 1,256) on a financial decision-support system implementing different anthropomorphic designs. We found that anthropomorphism indirectly reduces risk perception by increasing both cognitive and affective trust. Domain knowledge moderates these paths: participants with low financial knowledge experience a negative indirect effect of perceived anthropomorphism on risk perception via cognitive trust, whereas those with high financial knowledge exhibit a positive direct and indirect effect. We discuss theoretical contributions to human-AI interaction and design implications for calibrating trust in anthropomorphic decision-support systems for responsible AI.