MAVEN: Improving Generalization in Agentic Tool Calling

While explicit reasoning trajectories enhance model interpretability, existing paradigms often rely on monolithic chains that lack intermediate verification, allowing early errors to cascade unchecked. This lack of modularity impedes granular auditing and compromises the epistemic trust required for high-stakes applications. We propose MAVEN (Multi-Agent Verification-Elaboration Network with In-Step Epistemic Auditing), a blackboard-inspired framework designed to transform LLMs into deliberate reasoners through explicit role-decoupling. At its core, MAVEN operationalizes an adversarial Skeptic-Researcher-Judge loop, simulating expert deliberation by functionally separating logical defense from factual grounding. Experiments on OpenBookQA, TruthfulQA, HALUEVAL and StrategyQA benchmarks demonstrate that MAVEN delivers superior reasoning quality across four fine-grained metrics. Notably, MAVEN consistently outperforms latent reasoning models such as GEMINI-3.1-Pro and consensus-based baselines (e.g., ReConcile) by generating explicitly structured, modular, and verifiable deliberation trajectories, rather than relying on implicit internal states or post-hoc consensus. Moreover, comprehensive evaluations confirm that MAVEN is fully model-agnostic, serving as a strong and transferable reasoning booster that yields substantial performance improvements across diverse backbone models.

Self-evolving methods reduce the need for human-annotated trajectories by allowing tool-using agents to generate their own training data. Yet existing methods typically separate trajectory generation from evaluation, relying on static verifiers that cannot adapt to emerging failure modes or self-consistency signals that may reinforce errors shared across trajectories. Jointly adapting planning, execution, and evaluation offers a promising alternative, but introduces a fundamental coordination challenge: each component continuously changes the data or feedback used to train the others. We address this challenge with \textbf{UnifiedPlayers}, a cooperative framework comprising a Planning Player that generates tasks, an Execution Player that produces multi-turn trajectories with Python tool calls, and an Evaluation Player that constructs executable verifiers. We design role-specific rewards that coordinate the three players toward a shared learning objective under GRPO. Across two model backbones and twelve reasoning benchmarks, UnifiedPlayers outperforms the strongest prior baseline by at least 3.5% on mathematical reasoning and 3.9% on general reasoning tasks. Moreover, the learned verifier achieves 84.2% adversarial detection accuracy, while its reward signal exhibits 2.03$\times$ higher per-question variance than a self-consistency baseline, providing more discriminative verifications. These results highlight cooperation among specialized players as a promising path toward self-enhanced tool-integrated agents.

Current agentic workflows usually involve decomposing user requests into sequences of tool calls with correctly resolved parameters, the results of which are processed through reasoning traces in the language model's context window. The prevailing route to improve such reasoning is test-time scaling, which trains models to search over long chains of thought; but the resulting capability is entangled in model weights, is not verifiable step-by-step, and is costly at inference. We present Forethought, a neurosymbolic reasoning system that instead treats reasoning as an explicit, verifiable program, that builds from a library of symbolic and neural primitives which are composed through a domain-specific language. The result are reasoning programs, which are concrete representations of the model's work, and as such can be inspected and modified before deployment. Instantiated as a tool-calling execution kernel and evaluated across five benchmarks, Forethought improves base-model accuracy by about 30% relative and outperforms vanilla prompting, reinforcement learning scaffolds, and prompt-evolution methods, enabling small models to match or exceed frontier models capabilities. In a direct comparison, a non-reasoning model augmented with Forethought competes with a dedicated reasoning model while requiring roughly three orders of magnitude less post-training investment, and remains model-agnostic and auditable.