Reasoning Graphs

Chart reasoning agents are increasingly used to extract actionable insights in critical domains, achieving state-of-the-art performance on multiple benchmarks. Yet, high benchmark accuracy alone is insufficient for deployment, where stakeholders must be able to audit and verify how a model reaches its answer. Existing LVLM-based chart agents produce either answer-only predictions or free-form rationales that are hard to verify, obscuring whether an error arose from misreading the chart, extracting a wrong value, or miscomputing. We propose Chart-RVR, a reinforcement learning framework for training monitorable chart agents with verifiable process rewards. Chart-RVR decomposes chart reasoning into three auditable blocks: Structure, identifying the chart type; Evidence, reconstructing the underlying data table in JSON; and Derivation, exposing the stepwise trace that computes the answer. Across six in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks, Chart-RVR attains state-of-the-art accuracy among comparable-sized LVLMs. Beyond accuracy, we assess monitorability using a triangulated protocol that combines ground-truth surrogate metrics, an oracle information-gain measure, and an LLM-as-auditor scoring Process Verifiability and Evidence Localization, showing that Chart-RVR yields rationales that are markedly more verifiable and evidence-grounded than those from CoT prompting, SFT, and existing chart-specific baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to causal discovery, but candidate-graph generation rarely treats premature omission of potentially relevant causal relations as an explicit design objective. We propose MaSCoD, a multi-agent framework that organizes candidate third variables and local structural patterns before direct-edge judgment. We evaluate MaSCoD on Auto-MPG, DWD, and Sachs using GPT-5.4 as the primary backbone and GPT-4o for replication. MaSCoD exhibits a dataset- and backbone-dependent retention-selectivity profile rather than uniform superiority. Across all six dataset-backbone settings, Full, which supplies structural hypotheses before direct-edge judgment, achieved higher mean Recall and F1 than No Phase 1, which instead constructs them within the judgment procedure, while also increasing false-positive rates. Additional reference-edge retention over all evaluated baselines was observed on DWD with GPT-5.4 and on Sachs with GPT-4o, rather than uniformly across settings. Partial ablations showed that supplying both information components did not always outperform supplying only one. For GPT-5.4, stage-wise analysis showed that the Full-No Phase 1 retention gap was already present after direct-edge judgment, while reconciliation introduced additional reference-edge loss for Full on Sachs. These findings support structural pre-organization as an explicit design and evaluation target for omission control and motivate evaluating context construction jointly with its utilization in judgment.

Can a trace explaining model execution also compute the changes needed for a specified alternative prediction? We propose trace-guided intervention search, which uses executable reasoning traces as an intermediate representation for intervention synthesis. A Specified-Foil Counterfactual edits past events so that a frozen temporal predictor selects a designated foil. Our method constructs facts and replacement values from completed original and foil executions and recovered unmet conditions. Proposal generation constructs edits and selects candidates within a fixed cap; exact replay verifies foil top-1 outcomes among retained edits and compositions. Implemented in LiFTER for continuous-time dynamic graphs (CTDGs) and TLogic for temporal knowledge graphs (TKGs), the method improves success over coordinate-based proposal generation by 13.7-34.7 percentage points on four CTDG datasets and 60.0-83.3 points on two TKG datasets under matched downstream search and a proposal cap of 32. Separate shared-candidate comparisons retain 85.7-93.6% of black-box greedy's CTDG success rate with 75.0-80.0% fewer predictor evaluations. A Pulse case study confirms simulator-level survival for five of six interventions. Executable traces thus provide both explanatory evidence and a reusable computational representation for constructing and testing specified alternatives.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in visual question answering with natural images. However, they continue to struggle with scientific diagrams, which are designed to convey functional or relational meaning rather than literal scenes. We therefore introduce a framework for generating large-scale diagram-grounded instruction data by leveraging terminology derived from scientific curricula. Our approach systematically extracts domain concepts, synthesizes atomic facts, retrieves relevant diagrams from the web, and generates multimodal supervision in the form of diagram captions and multiple-choice questions. Using this pipeline, we construct SciGram, a dataset of over 194K diagrams and 1.4M visual instructions across life, earth, and physical sciences. Despite relying on noisy web data and synthetic annotations, models fine-tuned on SciGram achieve substantial improvements on diagram-centric benchmarks, including TQA, ScienceQA, and AI2D, outperforming or matching state-of-the-art VLMs while using fewer training instances. Furthermore, augmenting existing models such as LLaVA OneVision with SciGram establishes new state-of-the-art performance on diagram question answering. Our results highlight the effectiveness of terminology-grounded instruction generation as a general strategy for improving vision-language reasoning in scientific domains. To support future research in scientific diagram understanding, we release both the SciGram dataset and models.

Medical referral (directing patients to the appropriate hospital department) is a complex decision-making process requiring the synthesis of multimodal data, including patient narratives, laboratory indicators, and radiology imaging. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, they struggle with real-world referral tasks due to two primary limitations: (1) Information Overload, where models fixate on high-frequency disease terms while overlooking subtle but critical urgency indicators; and (2) Unstructured Collaboration, where existing multi-agent frameworks rely on loose dialogue that leads to semantic drift and confirmation bias. To address these challenges, we introduce MASGR (Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning), a framework that treats referral not as a classification task but as a structured graph construction problem. MASGR deploys specialized agents to extract evidence from distinct modalities and coordinates them through a clinical reasoning graph. This graph forces agents to establish explicit logical connections between conflicting evidence. Furthermore, we integrate a knowledge-guided arbitration mechanism that prioritizes patient safety rules over standard diagnostic classification. Extensive experiments on real-world medical records demonstrate that MASGR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and existing multi-agent systems, particularly in complex cases requiring the balancing of chronic disease management and emergency intervention. The AI contribution lies in the Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning framework that transforms unstructured multi-agent dialogue into a verifiable logical graph construction. The engineering application is demonstrated through its deployment in a complex healthcare decision-making system to optimize the precision of complex medical referrals.

Large Reasoning Models produce Long Chains-of-Thought (LCoTs) which involve breaking down the problem into smaller reasoning steps before reaching the conclusion. However, these steps often contain contradictions, unsupported inferences, or irrelevant steps, even when the final answer is correct. We propose Long Chain-of-Thought Graph Verifier (LCoT-GV), a graph-based framework that represents LCoTs as reasoning graphs. Each node in the graph represents a reasoning step and the edges encode semantic and logical relations. A Graph Attention Network is then trained to predict chain-of-thought correctness from the reasoning graph. We construct a new graph-oriented verification dataset from multiple reasoning benchmarks for question answering in various domains. The results show that our method is competitive with the most similar approaches.

Recent efforts have aimed to automate scientific diagram generation from paper content (Lin et al., 2026; Zhu et al., 2026a). However, fully satisfying an author's visual and communicative preferences in a single turn is challenging: in our formative user study (N = 14), all participants requested further revisions after viewing an initial draft, and 86% of them rated the refined diagrams as more satisfactory. Despite the clear demand, the multi-turn workflow remains largely underexplored. To bridge this gap, we present MTPaperBananaBench, a benchmark for multi-turn diagram generation containing 292 images annotated with 3,518 user requirements. To reduce expensive human studies and enable scalable benchmarking, we construct a user simulator that, at each turn, identifies unsatisfied requirements and converts k of them into natural language feedback. Evaluating both requirement satisfaction and overall diagram quality reveals two key failure modes shared across baseline multiturn systems: (1) quality drift, where diagram quality progressively declines over turns, and (2) forgetting, where previously implemented features are lost in subsequent turns. To address these issues, we introduce PaperBanana-Interact, a multi-agent system that refines diagrams via an internal critique-and-refine loop. PaperBanana-Interact consistently improves rather than degrades diagram quality across turns, outperforming baselines by 11.9-18.6 points in quality score and reducing forgetting by 3.7-6.2 points.

Text-to-image generation has reached photorealistic quality, yet state-of-the-art systems remain unreliable at producing scientific diagrams, whose value depends not on appearance but on physical faithfulness: correct force directions, valid coordinate systems, consistent thermodynamic states, and equations matching the depicted scenario. Trained on web imagery with physically shallow captions, generic models produce diagrams that look plausible but are physically wrong, harmful in education and scientific communication. We present Princigram, a physics-faithful scientific-diagram generator, and its data pipeline. Our central advance is Structured Physical Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT): a per-subdiscipline schema that decomposes a physics diagram into an explicit multi-step reasoning chain across six subdisciplines, from scene identification through force or process analysis to governing laws and synthesis. Unlike free-form chain-of-thought, SP-CoT follows a fixed schema with strict fidelity rules that separate visually grounded facts from physically inferred reasoning and type all mathematics symbolically; it serves both as dense training supervision and, at inference, as a structured "thinking" prompt. With it we curate and structurally annotate 4.3 million physics images, of which 115,037 carry expert-level annotation, and adapt a unified multimodal backbone. We further introduce VeriphyT2IBench, whose questions are derived from each held-out diagram's own structured annotation: each diagram becomes an item-specific bank of binary questions about its objects, forces, and states, so a judge model's score decomposes into named physical facts rather than one holistic number. On the physics subset of GenExam and on VeriphyT2IBench, Princigram shows that explicit physics-structured supervision improves the physical faithfulness of generated scientific diagrams.

Understanding the temporal progression of symptoms in clinical narratives is critical for disease monitoring, safety surveillance, and causality assessment. Clinical narratives, however, rarely provide explicit temporal anchors. Current approaches to temporal information reasoning focus predominantly on pairwise relation classification across multi-visit and timestamp-rich records, leaving the reconstruction of structured symptom trajectories from individual anchor-sparse reports largely unaddressed. We propose CRAFT, an LLM framework that pairs a generator with a constraint-based verifier to iteratively produce and refine stage-wise symptom timelines through targeted feedback. We conduct evaluation on MedTempo, a new benchmark of 5,347 vaccine adverse-event narratives spanning three COVID-19 vaccine types, with expert-validated temporal stage annotations for 3,166 reports. Experiments across four LLM backbones demonstrate that CRAFT consistently improves temporal ordering accuracy, with ablation analysis isolating the contribution of generator and verifier components across model capability levels.

Professionals across medicine, engineering, finance, manufacturing, and the sciences often make consequential decisions from charts. Existing chart benchmarks do not sufficiently measure this ability: they are dominated by bar, line, and pie formats, rely on shorter reasoning chains, and are nearing saturation, with frontier models already scoring 80-90%. We introduce Chartography, a benchmark of 100 tasks that pair charts drawn from professional practice, in domain-specific formats that standard chart benchmarks rarely include, with questions written by professionals who read these charts for a living and independently verified by three additional experts. In an evaluation of 30 frontier-model configurations (20 scored trials per task), the best configuration reaches only 45.0% mean pass@1; the remainder span 9.0-39.5%. Failures concentrate in visual perception: models can miss nuanced features, misread values along sparsely labeled axes, mishandle projected 3D geometry, and violate domain conventions encoded in the chart. We release all tasks, images, provenance metadata, and evaluation code.

Hospital quality improvement (QI) programs routinely face multiple candidate interventions to optimize hospital flow, but existing methods struggle to estimate and rank the causal effects of such interventions. This work focuses on one of the most standard hospital metrics, the average length of stay (LOS), and its causal estimand, the average time saved. To characterize this causal effect, qualitative approaches rely on expert judgment to map patient trajectories, making them susceptible to cognitive biases; quantitative approaches rely on data-driven models, which fail when interventions are hypothetical with no historical data or have complex causal mechanisms that require clinical reasoning rather than data alone. We propose expert-guided g-computation, or egg-computation, which combines the complementary strengths of both approaches by connecting the Gantt charts commonly used to map patient trajectories with the causal DAG literature. We introduce a causal model over Gantt charts and establish identification using a variant of g-computation that seeks expert input only for components unidentifiable from data. To make egg-computation practical, we develop an LLM-assisted pipeline that reliably scales up expert reasoning. In simulations, egg-computation outperforms conventional causal inference methods when patients have diverse causal structures and intervention mechanisms. In a study of eleven candidate QI interventions at an urban safety-net hospital, the LLM pipeline generated graphs and time-saving estimates highly concordant with those of human experts. Beyond healthcare, egg-computation is a broadly applicable framework for estimating the average time saved for candidate interventions whose causal mechanisms can be represented using Gantt charts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming database interaction paradigms, evolving from simple query translators to autonomous database administrators (DBAs). However, current evaluation benchmarks remain disproportionately fixated on Text-to-SQL tasks, neglecting the holistic Database Lifecycle-from initial schema design to post-deployment maintenance. This narrow focus fails to capture the diverse capabilities required for real-world database management. To bridge this gap, we introduce DBLifeBench, the first benchmark to evaluate LLMs across five critical lifecycle phases: Design, Implementation, Operation, Debugging, and Maintenance. Furthermore, addressing the cognitive mismatch between ambiguous natural language and complex SQL logic, we propose Progressive-Text2SQL, a novel task utilizing structured reasoning graphs to mimic human iterative problem-solving. Our extensive evaluation reveals a critical insight: while general-purpose models demonstrate balanced performance, specialized Text-to-SQL models suffer from ``catastrophic forgetting'' in non-coding phases like design and maintenance. DBLifeBench serves as a foundational step toward evaluating and building true full-stack database intelligence.

Chart question answering (CQA) requires multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to integrate visual comprehension with logical reasoning, yet current models struggle with accurate visual grounding and coherent reasoning chains. While extrinsic chain-of-thought prompting and visual cues significantly improve performance, current MLLMs lack intrinsic visual grounded reasoning capabilities, leading to inaccurate perception and reasoning disconnected from visual evidence. To address these limitations, we propose CURV, a curriculum learning framework that develops intrinsic visual reasoning capabilities by reformulating CQA as multi-step visual grounded reasoning, where each step coordinates logical reasoning with dynamic visual grounding through spatial attention concentration. To assist model learning, we further introduce CCQA, a three-level curriculum dataset with scalable synthetic generation across diverse chart types and reasoning patterns. Our curriculum systematically progresses from basic single-operation reasoning to complex multi-chart compositional tasks. Experiments demonstrate that CURV achieves up to $\uparrow20.50\%$ improvements over baselines and is generalizable to real-world benchmarks (up to $\uparrow12.30\%$) and out-of-domain multimodal reasoning tasks (up to $\uparrow10.20\%$), validating the effectiveness of internalizing visual reasoning with dynamic grounding for enhanced chart understanding capabilities. Code is available at: https://xhguo7.github.io/CURV/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose. On high-stakes tasks, users cannot tell which steps are well-supported, which alternatives were seriously considered, or how the final conclusion compares to those the model discarded. We propose a framework that ensembles the reasoning structure, not just the answers, of multiple LLMs by weighted merging of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) extracted from reasoning chains. We weight each step by how many traces independently attest to it, to return "Consensus Reasoning". Across six benchmarks spanning statutory interpretation, graduate-level science, narrative multi-hop reasoning, and first-order logic, our ensemble outperforms a matched-budget majority-vote baseline, with a maximum accuracy gain of 3.1% on MuSR-MM (narrative multi-hop reasoning). On a single model, the framework matches or exceeds self-consistency at the same trace budget while additionally exposing an inspectable consensus reasoning graph. Ensemble weights correlate with LLM-judge rankings of reasoning quality at Spearman $ρ= 0.30$-$0.51$, and consensus subgraphs are preferred over alternatives leading to the majority-vote answer in 54.4-65.4% of head-to-head comparisons across five of six datasets. We observe that our framework can also be used to analyze diverse reasoning perspectives for a problem.

Modern telecommunication, cloud, and microservice systems emit correlated alarm cascades when components fail. Root cause analysis (RCA) aims to identify the small set of alarms that initiate each cascade. A common approach learns a causal graph from observational logs and predicts all zero-in-degree alarms in each incident-induced subgraph. However, the learned graph remains fixed and cannot benefit from expert diagnoses of historical incidents. We close this loop with EvoCause. Expert labels constrain which alarms should be source nodes but do not specify the edge edits needed to satisfy those constraints. EvoCause uses a large language model (LLM) to propose semantically plausible graph edits, while deterministic code validates node identities and acyclicity and retains the best graph on a labeled alignment set. At test time, the refined graph alone produces transparent predictions without an LLM call. We also release TeleRCA, an expert-annotated benchmark from a production telecommunication network containing $485{,}681$ alarm events spanning $194$ alarm types over $5{,}621$ resources. On synthetic data, EvoCause initialized with the PC causal discovery algorithm outperforms the unrefined PC baseline, raising Node F1, Case EM, and Graph F1 by $11.59$, $9.40$, and $4.59$ percentage points, respectively, while reducing nSHD by $0.2379$. On TeleRCA, replacing human-readable alarm titles with anonymous identifiers lowers Node F1 and Case EM by $6.12$ and $8.04$ percentage points, respectively, indicating that alarm-name information contributes to graph refinement.

Diagrams are widely used to support logical reasoning, and prior studies suggest that representations such as Euler diagrams can improve human reasoning performance. Recent work has also explored their effects on large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we compare four representational conditions for syllogistic reasoning: natural language, logical notation, linear diagrams, and Euler diagrams. Using 285 problems from Ando et al. (2024), we evaluate two contemporary LLMs, Claude 3.5~Sonnet and GPT-4o-mini. Our results show that diagrammatic representations do not consistently improve performance. Although the models perform well on entailment and contradiction problems, they struggle with neutral problems and often make systematic conversion errors. Overall, the results suggest that the tested models gain limited benefit from diagrams in logical reasoning tasks.

Constructing causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) is a core step in biomedical causal analysis, yet it remains a largely manual process. Analysts must connect study variables to prior literature, evaluate uncertain causal claims, and preserve sufficient provenance for expert review. We present EviDAG, a browser-based system for authoring causal DAGs as auditable, evidence-linked artifacts from biomedical literature. Given free-text descriptions of study concepts, EviDAG creates a reproducible literature snapshot, uses an LLM-based reasoning module to generate structured pairwise causal judgments, links literature-supported judgments to verbatim evidence excerpts, and assembles the judgments into a constraint-checked graph. Each proposed edge includes confidence estimates, provenance, and a reviewable rationale. The interface supports study specification, progress monitoring, evidence review, graph comparison, adjustment-set computation, and export. In evaluations against both compact benchmark DAGs and reference DAGs derived from published literature, EviDAG achieves high edge recall on the literature-based cohort while retaining verifiable evidence trails absent from LLM-only baselines. EviDAG thus reduces the burden of causal DAG curation while making the resulting assumptions auditable, supporting the design, analysis, and interpretation of biomedical studies.

We introduce ARBIGRAPH, a benchmark generator for evaluating whether tool-assisted language agents can retain, update, compose, and discard task-relevant context across extended reasoning workflows. ARBIGRAPH represents each task as a natural-language problem with an executable Python solver, and composes tasks through typed intermediate states, instantiated here as scalar and list values. This design enables controllable task graphs whose length, dependency structure, distractor count, and value type can be varied while preserving exact automatic verification. We instantiate ARBIGRAPH with math, GSM-style word-problems, and Python-tracing task categories, and evaluate a Qwen3.5-27B tool-assisted agent across four topologies. The results show high accuracy on isolated tasks but substantial degradation on more complex dependent tasks: accuracy drops by up to 33.3% on branching chains of dependent math tasks. This shows that ARBIGRAPH exposes failures that are not visible from single-task evaluation alone. Our code, generated datasets, and evaluation results are available at https://github.com/pavelgolikov/ArbiGraph.git

Enterprise IT support knowledge graphs capture rich relationships among cases, users, devices, symptoms, taxonomic categories, root causes, and historical resolutions. Yet querying them in Gremlin requires knowledge of graph schemas, traversal semantics, edge directionality, and property-graph-specific constraints, making them difficult for non-expert operators to use. We introduce SEGRA, an experience-guided agent for enterprise text-to-Gremlin question answering. SEGRA integrates intent routing, schema- and taxonomy-grounded query generation, multi-shot decomposition, execution-aware verification, and a curriculum-bootstrapped skill library that reuses verified query patterns. On an enterprise IT support benchmark, SEGRA achieves a $7.0\times$ higher mean judge score than backbone-only chain-of-thought prompting. Its skill library further reduces LLM calls by $20\%$ and dollar cost by $18\%$ relative to SEGRA without skills, while preserving answer quality. These results show that schema-grounded agent design and reusable execution experience improve both accuracy and efficiency for enterprise graph QA.

Structural fidelity is essential to scientific methodology diagrams. To communicate research logic, these diagrams must faithfully render components, directional relations, and textual annotations. Since a single error, such as a reversed arrow or an unreadable equation, can invalidate the entire figure, structural fidelity is inherently conjunctive: correctness on one axis cannot compensate for failure on another. Current open-source models fail to satisfy this criterion. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) learns plausible layouts but cannot reliably ensure structural correctness, while scalar reward-based post-training obscures which structural dimension has failed. To address this, we introduce SciForma, a framework for the structure faithful generation of scientific methodology diagrams. Specifically, SciForma decomposes diagram quality into three structural axes: Component, Arrow, and Text, guided by a structural inventory. Built on this foundation, we curate SciFormaData-700K for structured training and SciFormaBench-2K for logic-verified evaluation. To close the gap left by SFT, we develop Multi-Dimensional Conjunctive Preference Optimization (M-DPO), which enforces simultaneous correctness across all axes and adaptively routes gradients to the most deficient dimension in post-training. The same structural inventory also enables iterative editing at inference time to correct residual errors. This combination allows SciForma-9B to exceed all open-source baselines and GPT-Image-1.5 on both SciFormaBench-2K and AIBench, bringing open scientific diagram generation close to proprietary-level structural fidelity. Our code and data will be available at: https://github.com/microsoft/SciForma.

Scientific Reasoning Graph Extraction (SRGE) aims to recover explicit links among observations, evidence, intermediate claims, and paper-level conclusions. LLMs can produce graph-like scientific explanations, but their outputs often mix malformed syntax, drifting edge labels, incorrectly oriented roots, and weak source anchors. We propose PEARL (Peircean Extraction via Abstraction and Repair Layer), a training-free framework that turns noisy LLM graph responses into auditable reasoning graphs and repairs them toward strict semantic validity. PEARL first materializes explicit graph content under a closed Peircean schema, then uses matched evidence-grounded judge feedback to repair rejected edge types, local inference steps, and terminal roots while preserving an audit trail. On five 70-paper model archives from ARCHE, a benchmark for latent reasoning-chain extraction, PEARL raises strict gate passes from 0/350 for the LLM baseline to 300/350, with average REA improving from 0.339 to 0.906. The graphs provide a reliability layer for research-agent and AI scientist workflows that need inspectable reasoning traces rather than unconstrained graph regeneration. Code and audit artifacts are available at https://github.com/BohanSu/auditable-repair-reasoning-graphs/tree/300-350_workshop .

Given the current trend to employ large language models (LLMs) in almost any imaginable context, LLM-generated text detection and authorship attribution have become a pressing issue. Prior work has primarily focused on surface-level linguistic features, an approach shown to be susceptible to paraphrasing and other obfuscation techniques. In this paper, we go beyond the linguistic surface, extracting and analysing reasoning structures in LLM-generated texts with the goal of capturing more complex signals of LLM authorship. We propose a graph neural network approach that leverages reasoning graphs extracted by an argument mining pipeline, demonstrating improved robustness and generalisation over a traditional Longformer baseline. Our approach outperforms the baseline by up to 27 percentage points under the obfuscation attacks such as paraphrasing and backtranslation, and 19 percentage points when evaluated on the texts generated by the unseen model versions, simulating real-world conditions in which new LLM versions are continuously released.

Recent LLM-based mathematical reasoning agents have begun to tackle research-level problems and, in several cases, have contributed to the resolution of open problems. However, scaling and orchestrating such agents effectively remains challenging, due to the difficulty of coordinating parallel proof search while keeping intermediate claims organized and reliable. In this paper, we propose Danus, an orchestration system for research-level mathematical reasoning centered on a shared fact graph as a global memory-management mechanism. Danus consists of a main agent that performs planning and coordination, multiple worker agents that carry out proof search in parallel, and a stateless verifier that checks proposed mathematical claims before they are admitted into the fact graph. Each verified fact is stored together with its proof and logical dependencies, allowing the system to build long arguments incrementally while keeping the shared proof state organized. The main agent periodically summarizes the evolving proof state, redirects workers across promising directions, and supports interaction with human mathematicians through progress reports. We evaluate Danus through six research-level case studies in algebraic geometry, singularity theory, and combinatorics, illustrating how the fact-graph memory mechanism enables Danus to construct long, detailed mathematical proofs. Our results suggest that fact-graph-based orchestration provides an effective route toward scaling mathematical reasoning agents for long-horizon research problems. Danus is open source at https://github.com/frenzymath/Danus.

Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching. We introduce clinical reasoning graphs, structured graph representations extracted from free-text LLM diagnostic traces using a domain-grounded ontology with 5 node types and 7 edge types. We apply this pipeline to 750 traces from five LLMs across 50 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference cases and three prompt conditions, and test whether diagnostic traces show stable structured reasoning patterns, or diagnostic schemas, for clinically similar cases. We operationalize this as higher graph similarity among clinically similar cases than among clinically dissimilar ones. Across 15 model-condition comparisons, within-cluster and between-cluster composite similarity are nearly equal, and no comparison survives multiple-testing correction; a component-level analysis finds any residual content signal far below schema scale. Graph similarity is also nearly identical for pairs of models that are both correct (0.488) and both incorrect (0.484), suggesting that graph structure captures a dimension not reflected in diagnostic accuracy. Structured reflection prompting increases explicit discriminating-feature analysis within traces (+33%) but does not increase cross-case consistency. These results show diagnostic competence without schema-scale reasoning consistency, and indicate that final-answer accuracy should be complemented by process-level evaluation. We release the ontology, extraction pipeline, validation protocol, and the extracted reasoning graphs and similarity artifacts as resources for structured evaluation of LLM clinical reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) can produce clinically fluent recommendations for type 2 diabetes while failing to satisfy guideline constraints or explicitly justify lifestyle-related glycemic claims. We present T2D-Bench, a reproducible benchmark and evidence-gated evaluation framework for testing whether LLM outputs satisfy explicit, graph-checkable evidence requirements. T2D-Bench is built on a multi-layer clinical-lifestyle knowledge graph that combines a biomedical spine (UMLS, DrugBank, SIDER), computable ADA Standards of Care rules, and lifestyle knowledge connected through a mechanistic bridge to glycemic laboratory effects. Across 100 structured vignettes spanning diagnosis, medication safety, and adversarial lifestyle conflicts, baseline outputs failed benchmark-defined evidence-path checks in 35% of cases for GPT-4o-mini and 33% for GPT-4o. The evidence gate detects unsupported omissions and uses constrained revision to bring outputs into verifier-level compliance with benchmark-defined evidence requirements. These results show that computable evidence constraints can make unsupported clinical omissions explicit, measurable, and correctable in diabetes-focused LLM outputs.

Table Question Answering (TableQA) aims to reason over tables to answer user queries. Existing research treats all questions uniformly and evaluates solely through overall accuracy, obscuring a critical reality that LLMs excel at simple lookups yet struggle with complex operations like aggregation and arithmetic. To reveal this disparity, we introduce a novel \emph{Operation-wise TableQA} task with a fine-grained question taxonomy and release two datasets named WikiTQ-ow and TabFact-ow for evaluation. As for modeling bottlenecks, existing methods flatten tables into linearized texts, disrupting inherent structures and inducing the ``lost-in-the-middle'' issue, which poses a primary barrier to complex cross-row reasoning. Moreover, they typically reason from scratch, neglecting reusable patterns shared across similar operations. To address these limitations, we propose a Skill-augmented Table Graph Reasoning (SkillTGR) framework for self-evolving structured reasoning. Specifically, SkillTGR represents tables as attributed graphs with explicit row-column-cell structures, where LLMs plan and execute dynamic chains to retrieve evidence subgraphs for graph traversal reasoning. Based on this, SkillTGR builds a hierarchical SkillBank to distill reason trajectories into abstract skills under cognitive heuristics, then hybrid retrieves both successful and failed skills for contrastive augmented table graph reasoning, thereby enabling the continual self-evolution. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SkillTGR achieves superior performance with an average of 5.91% overall and 5.06% operation-wise improvement, also reducing 19.76% token consumption and 27.64% inference latency. Our codes and data will be released upon publication.

LLM-based agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in data-intensive analytical tasks, yet their outputs are rarely verifiable: a reliance on linear text trajectories makes their reasoning difficult to audit. In particular, deterministic computations over raw data and semantic deductions over natural-language claims are often entangled in an unstructured stream, leaving numerical conclusions hard to reproduce and qualitative judgments hard to inspect. To address this, we propose VeriGraph, a traceable neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that enables agents to construct an explicit heterogeneous evidence directed acyclic graph (DAG) during execution. VeriGraph introduces three evidence-expansion primitives, namely computational, grounding, and derivational expansion, to connect raw data, interpreter variables, computed results, and natural-language claims in a unified graph. Under this formulation, structural traceability is reduced to graph reachability from raw data sources to terminal claims, while semantic support is measured by claim-level evidence evaluation. To improve graph construction, we further design a graph-based policy optimization strategy with a composite reward that jointly supervises answer correctness, computational integrity, and derivational coherence. Experiments on four benchmarks show that VeriGraph-8B achieves the highest overall score among all baselines. More importantly, VeriGraph produces auditable evidence graphs with substantially stronger claim grounding, achieving a 87.61% Grounding Rate under our claim-level evidence support evaluation. These results suggest that explicit evidence-graph construction is a promising path toward verifiable data-analytic agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/ignorejjj/VeriGraph.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on agent harnesses that manage context, tools, and multi-turn execution, making tools a central interface for acting in realistic digital environments. As harness-connected tool ecosystems expand to hundreds or thousands of APIs, services, and task-specific skills, exhaustive tool schema injection becomes costly and imposes a closed-world assumption that limits agents to a predefined static inventory. Retrieval-augmented tool selection offers a natural alternative, but existing one-shot retrieval methods often fail to align isolated tool descriptions with the agent's true task intention, especially in long-horizon tasks where required capabilities emerge through decomposition, observations, and newly induced subgoals. We propose SING, an intention-aware active tool discovery framework that builds an intention-tool graph linking user intentions, tool capabilities, and tool collaboration patterns, and dynamically retrieves tools according to evolving task states. Using a unified corpus of 7,471 tools, we evaluate SING on three real-world tool-use benchmarks. SING improves Global Recall@5 by up to 59.8% and downstream success rate by up to 28.9% over baselines, while reducing full-corpus tool-schema exposure by 99.8%, demonstrating that intention-aware graph structure enables more accurate and context-efficient tool discovery in large-scale agentic ecosystems.

Large language models have achieved impressive performance on reasoning tasks spanning mathematics, science, programming, and commonsense inference. Despite these advances, their reasoning processes remain largely latent, making them difficult to interpret, verify, replay, debug, and transfer across domains. Existing approaches such as chain-of-thought, tree-of-thoughts, graph-of-thoughts, and tool-augmented reasoning expose intermediate reasoning artifacts but typically lack explicit execution semantics, formal state representations, and verifiable reasoning structures. We introduce Theorem-Grounded Execution Ontologies (TGEO), a framework that models reasoning as an executable state-transition process rather than a sequence of generated tokens. Given an input problem, TGEO identifies relevant theorem families, binds the problem to a domain ontology, discovers semantic objects, instantiates states and operators, constructs predicates and contracts, and synthesizes an executable reasoning graph. The resulting graph provides an interpretable, replayable, and auditable representation of reasoning in which every state transition, operator application, and validation step is explicitly represented. TGEO integrates five architectural components: (1) theorem-grounded reasoning priors, (2) executable ontologies, (3) operator-mediated state transitions, (4) predicate and contract-based execution validation, and (5) architectural auditing and failure localization. We evaluate TGEO on theorem-intensive reasoning tasks derived from mathematical benchmark domains and a curated Golden Execution Suite. Our findings demonstrate the value of executable reasoning representations for interpretable, verifiable, and reproducible AI reasoning systems.

Search Agents -- large language models augmented with search tools -- have intensified the need for future-proof evaluation benchmarks. Existing benchmarks such as BrowseComp rely on static knowledge, making them vulnerable to test-set contamination and parametric memorization. Consequently, models can achieve high scores through fact recall rather than genuine retrieval, obscuring true browsing competence via reasoning shortcuts. In this paper, we introduce EvoBrowseComp, an evolving benchmark of 400 English and 400 Chinese contamination-free complex questions synthesized via live-web traversal. To collect these questions, we design a three-agent collaborative framework: (1) a QA synthesis agent that retrieves fresh knowledge from the live web to synthesize QA pairs; (2) an information filtering agent that filters retrieved knowledge in terms of credibility and popularity to block parametric shortcuts; and (3) a high-level guidance agent that formalizes questions into reasoning graphs to reduce logical redundancy and shortcuts in synthesized QA pairs. Because the framework supports fully automated synthesis, EvoBrowseComp can be regularly updated to prevent data contamination and maintain temporal freshness. Extensive experiments confirm its great difficulty, requiring broad horizontal search. It establishes a scalable paradigm for auto-updatable, high-difficulty benchmarking that keeps pace with both evolving world knowledge and advancing agent capabilities.

Kubernetes incidents are diagnosed reliably only when a root-cause system's reported gains come from incident evidence rather than scenario-specific shortcuts. We present Graph Traversal Agent, a graph-guided RCA agent that combines LLM reasoning with specialized tools. The model reasons over a typed evidence graph, while deterministic graph and tool operations collect evidence, bound the search, and check proposed verdicts. We map operational constraints, including read-only evidence collection, propagation-aware diagnosis, bounded execution, and independently validated verdicts, to a typed incident graph, a LangGraph traversal state machine, and a separate validation stage. On ITBench snapshots scored by one fixed qwen-plus judge, the audited system raises root-cause-entity F1 over an earlier iteration of the same system from 0.6087 to 0.9130 on a 23-scenario common subset. A prompt-level ablation separates prompt-tuned gains from gains that survive once scenario-specific hints are removed: the stripped-prompt configuration retains 0.6958 F1 on a 19-scenario subset. The surviving gain concentrates on ChaosMesh scenarios whose ground-truth root cause is the injected fault object already present in the evidence graph, so we report it as benchmark-coupled rather than broad cross-cluster RCA evidence. Lightweight checks, including same-judge comparison, prompt-level ablation, cascade-source checking, and a telemetry no-leak test, mark claims as supported, pending, or out of scope. We scope the work to ITBench OpenTelemetry-demo snapshots. Live-cluster trials served as an engineering stress test, but alert state and trace availability did not stay stable enough for controlled scoring, so we make no production-readiness or mean-time-to-repair claim.

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

Large language models have shown strong performance in natural language generation and downstream reasoning tasks, but they still struggle with logical consistency, factual grounding, and interpretability in complex multi-step reasoning. To address these limitations, this paper proposes SGR, a stepwise reasoning enhancement framework that integrates large language models with external knowledge graphs through query-relevant subgraph generation. Given an input question, SGR first extracts key entities, relations, and constraints to construct a structured schema, then retrieves compact subgraphs from a knowledge graph using schema-guided querying. The generated subgraphs provide explicit relational evidence that guides the language model through step-by-step reasoning. In addition, SGR combines direct Cypher-based reasoning with collaborative reasoning integration, allowing candidate answers from multiple reasoning paths to be validated and aggregated according to both model confidence and graph consistency. Experiments on benchmark datasets including CWQ, WebQSP, GrailQA, and KQA Pro demonstrate that SGR improves reasoning accuracy and Hits@1 performance over standard prompting and several knowledge-enhanced baselines. Ablation studies further show that schema guidance and Neo4j-based retrieval are both crucial to the effectiveness of the framework. These results indicate that dynamically generated external subgraphs can improve the accuracy, robustness, and interpretability of LLM-based reasoning.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) are often evaluated using metrics such as final-answer accuracy or token count. However, identical scores on these metrics can hide fundamentally different reasoning structures. To address this limitation, we introduce a scalable LRM benchmark of logic puzzles and a pipeline that converts unstructured traces into verifiable reasoning graphs of claims and dependencies. This turns reasoning into a structured, measurable object whose topology can be quantitatively analyzed. Building on this, we define a reasoning efficiency metric that quantifies how concentrated the model's logical flow is. Our analysis on open-source reasoning models shows that structural measurements separate behaviors that token count and accuracy conflate, providing a practical tool for diagnosing failure modes and comparing how reasoning scales with puzzle difficulty.

The do-calculus defines a general system of inference for interventional queries, allowing causal quantities to be transformed through successive applications of its rules. This process induces a rich space of equivalent interventional expressions, but combining and ordering these rules remains challenging. In this work, we introduce derivation graphs, which represent how do-calculus rules are applied and combined, and characterize the full space of observational and interventional probabilities which are equivalent under the do-calculus. The structure of these graphs yields a simple procedure that uses at most four applications of do-calculus rules. Finally, we show how applying identification algorithms to equivalent causal queries produces multiple valid estimands for the same causal quantity, eventually yielding more efficient estimators.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as self-study assistants in technical disciplines, yet their reliability as mathematical reasoning assistants remains poorly understood. We introduce GTBench, a curriculum-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mathematical research assistants in graph theory, comprising 63 problems organized into three groups of increasing difficulty: undergraduate definitions and basic properties (Group 1), algorithm tracing and structural reasoning (Group 2), and graduate-level proof construction (Group 3). Problems are sourced from verified academic materials including Diestel's Graph Theory. We evaluate five frontier models -- GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Llama 3.3 70B, and Mistral Large 3 -- under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, using exact-match and LLM-as-judge evaluation for Groups 1 and 2, and a hybrid human expert and LLM-as-judge protocol for Group 3. Our results reveal a pronounced performance hierarchy: GPT-5 approaches ceiling on Group 1 (95.8% zero-shot) and maintains meaningful accuracy on graduate proofs (82%), while all other models degrade substantially with difficulty, with Llama achieving 0% under human evaluation on Group 3 zero-shot. Failure mode analysis shows that correct algorithm, wrong execution errors dominate Groups 1 and 2, while Group 3 additionally surfaces incomplete reasoning failures and reveals systematic disagreement between human evaluators and the automated judge, particularly on verbose or near-complete proofs (kappa = 0.48-0.83 across human pairs). GTBench provides the first curriculum-grounded evaluation framework for graph-theoretic reasoning in LLMs, with direct implications for the governance of AI tools in mathematical education and scientific research.

Graphs have been used to enhance large language models (LLMs) for structured reasoning, mostly as external knowledge sources are provided to models at test time. In this paper, we take a different view: the value of graphs for LLMs lie not only in supplying information, but also in organizing reasoning. Inspired by how humans use graph-structured mind maps to organize branching and converging thoughts, we ask whether graphs can serve as an internal form of reasoning assistance. We study this question on multi-hop question answering tasks, where teacher-provided reasoning traces are rewritten as graph mind maps and used to guide a student model. Our experiments reveal a clear modality gap. When graph structures are flattened into text, their benefits become limited once direct answer hints are removed. Under this abstract guidance setting, both reasoning efficiency and answer quality degrade substantially. In contrast, visual graph guidance remains effective without direct answer clues, and its advantage persists after supervised fine-tuning and KL-based distillation. The above findings support the claim that graphs should be studied not only as external knowledge structures for LLMs, but also as visual scaffolds for organizing reasoning.

Multimodal LLMs are increasingly used to assist scientific peer review, where a core requirement is verifying whether claims in a paper are supported by its evidence. Prior work has shown that models perform substantially better at this task when the evidence is a table than when it is a chart of the same underlying data. This raises the question of whether models fail to extract information from charts, or do they extract it but fail to use it when forming their prediction? We study this question through layer-wise linear probing and attention analysis on three open-weight VLMs over table and chart evidence, representing the same underlying data. We find consistent evidence for the latter. Chart information is encoded in the models' intermediate representations but does not reach the prediction position, a gap that is absent for tables and holds across all conditions tested. Attention analysis further reveals that this disconnect takes two architecturally distinct forms across model families. These findings reframe the table-chart gap as a failure of how encoded visual information is routed at prediction time, rather than a failure of encoding itself.

Tackling complex reasoning tasks typically relies on massive monolithic LLMs, which suffer from severe computational redundancy. While task decomposition through structured pipelines or multi-agent collaborations offers an alternative, these approaches inevitably fall into a critical dilemma: predefined static topologies are highly vulnerable to cascading errors, whereas unconstrained dynamic agents suffer from trajectory divergence and unpredictable memory bloat. To address this, we present DynaGraph, a lightweight multi-model framework driven by dynamic topological reconfiguration. At the execution level, DynaGraph multiplexes time-division PEFT adapters over a shared base model, enabling both full system training and inference deployment on a single consumer-grade GPU. At the routing level, the Evaluator continuously monitors execution confidence to trigger hierarchical self-healing: Fine-grained Patching for localized data gaps and Subgraph Reconstruction for severe logical ruptures. Experiments on StrategyQA, MATH, and FinQA demonstrate our 8B model closely approximates the reasoning capabilities of a 72B monolithic model (e.g., 87.6% on StrategyQA, 82.7% on MATH). Furthermore, it reduces latency by up to 68.1% and token consumption by 68.6% compared to unconstrained dynamic architectures.

Parsing chemical reaction diagrams from scientific literature is challenging due to heterogeneous layouts, intertwined visual elements, and the difficulty of integrating recognition and reasoning. Existing vision-language models advance multimodal understanding but still fail on complex diagrams, struggling to maintain spatial coherence and to integrate multidimensional information during reasoning. To address these issues, we propose MACReD, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that coordinates specialized agents for molecular perception, arrow understanding, text extraction, and reaction reconstruction within a unified VLM-guided architecture. The planning and perception layers use flexible, fine-grained detection to handle visual complexity, while the reasoning layer uses a multigraph fusion mechanism to integrate heterogeneous cues and enforce chemically consistent global reasoning. Experiments on the RxnScribe benchmark show that MACReD achieves state-of-the-art performance, with F1 scores of 75.2% and 84.6% under hard and soft match criteria, outperforming the RxnScribe baseline, which obtains 69.1% and 80.0%, respectively. These results demonstrate the robustness of MACReD across diverse diagram layouts, including multi-step and tree-structured reactions.

Chart question-answering (QA) benchmarks aim to pose questions that require visual reasoning to correctly answer, but models can often reach solutions through shortcuts or prior familiarity with a chart based on their own background knowledge. To strictly evaluate visual reasoning, we propose counterfactual charts where the chart-question task remains fixed, but underlying chart and the corresponding answer are varied. We introduce Chartographer, a framework to reverse engineer charts into executable code, validate reconstruction fidelity, generate seed-controlled counterfactual variants, and derive new answers from executable QA logic. We apply this framework to existing chart QA datasets and evaluate proprietary and open-source vision-language models (VLMs), measuring variation sensitivity and generalizability. Counterfactual charts reveal failures hidden by single-chart performance: VLMs often fail to generalize after answering the original chart correctly. We find failures are most prevalent when updated charts require novel visual reasoning pathways.

Charts are widely used to present complex data for analysis and decision making. Existing chart understanding benchmarks mainly focus on static charts, but real-world charts are often dynamic and interactive. Key information may only appear after actions such as hovering, clicking, zooming, or dragging. Dynamic chart understanding therefore requires models to identify visible content, choose proper interactions, and reason over changing chart states. To evaluate this ability, we propose ChartAct, an interactive benchmark for dynamic chart understanding. ChartAct collects and filters 673 dynamic charts from 8 real chart websites, covers 7 common chart types, and constructs 1,440 high-quality question-answer samples. Each sample is instantiated in two environments, Dynamic Chart and Dashboard Chart, to evaluate dynamic chart understanding under different contexts. Based on ChartAct, we systematically evaluate 11 advanced multimodal models and GUI agents. Experimental results show that existing models still have clear limitations in dynamic chart understanding. The strongest model, Claude-Opus-4.7, achieves an average success rate of 84.5%, while most models remain below 60%. We also conduct detailed failure attribution and case analysis. ChartAct provides a new benchmark for studying chart understanding in real interactive environments. Codes at https://github.com/wulin-wulin/OSWorld_Chart

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encode evidence-based decision logic that clinicians apply by evaluating patient variables, conditional criteria, and recommendation rules. However, existing methods often use CPGs as free-text training data or retrieval sources, underutilizing their procedural decision structure. To better exploit this structure, we introduce a guideline-derived training pipeline that transforms CPG recommendations into executable clinical decision logic and uses it to generate factual and counterfactual question-answering data. Theses data teach models both guideline-supported decisions and how decisions change under different patient conditions. Post-training a medical LLM on the generated data yields MedGuideX. Across four clinical reasoning benchmarks, MedGuideX achieves a 10.28% relative improvement in average accuracy. Physician evaluation further shows that MedGuideX better recovers clinician authored reasoning steps and produces physician-preferred rationales in faithfulness, validity, completeness, and clarity. Overall, our results show that executable decision logic from CPGs can be transformed into scalable supervision for building reliable medical LLMs.

Clinical pathways are disseminated as visual flowcharts where spatial topology, arrow direction, colour coding, and font weight encode critical triage logic that remains inaccessible to computational systems. We present PathWISE, a five-phase pipeline combining four LLM-based agents with a deterministic depth-first search auditor and a Java compiler critic, transforming these non-computable artefacts into validated, executable HL7 Clinical Quality Language (CQL) libraries deployable as FHIR CDS Hooks services. Purpose-built agents extract flowchart structure into a typed directed graph, perform deterministic path enumeration, conduct a structured semantic audit of every node's computability, generate terminology-constrained CQL definitions verified by the official Java CQL-to-ELM compiler, and produce routing logic covering 100% of enumerated patient journeys. Demonstrated across five UK NHS cancer pathways (colorectal, lung, skin, upper GI, and breast), PathWISE audits up to 183 nodes (182 under the Hybrid configuration), identifies 544 structured governance findings across four issue categories, achieves 100% syntactic compilation success, with UNCOMPUTABLE nodes receiving false placeholders that preserve compilability while surfacing governance gaps for clinical review, and produces zero hallucinated terminology codes for dictionary-covered concepts. Critically, PathWISE confines non-deterministic LLM inference to knowledge extraction while deterministic graph mathematics and a standard compiler underpin every verification step.

AI Scientists have shown promising progress across multiple stages of the research pipeline, among which automatic scientific paper writing remains a formidable challenge. The Introduction writing is especially challenging, which demands not only linguistic fluency, but logical soundness and verifiable faithfulness. Most AI-assisted methods treat the task as text generation instead of reasoning and structuring, leading to severe drawbacks, e.g., hallucinating citations. To address this, we first formulate the Content-Conditional Introduction Generation (CCIG) task, which requires grounding the Introduction in the paper's core evidence. We then propose LECTOR, a novel Logic-Expression Co-Reinforcement Learning framework that can strictly follow the scientist's logic, add high-quality citations and keep structured expressions. LECTOR first constructs a logic-reasoning graph from the paper's main body to serve as a verifiable logical blueprint. Subsequently, it employs a Logic-Expression Co-Rewarding mechanism to jointly optimize for both the graph's structural fidelity and the final narrative's quality. We conduct a dataset from Nature Communications papers to assess our method. Extensive experiments show consistent improvements in both logic fidelity and Introduction generation quality metrics, e.g., Graph Quality (+26.7%), Citation Quality (+8.6%), and Paper Consistency (+3.3%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Xiao-Youth/LECTOR.

Charts play a critical role in conveying numerical data insights through structured visual representations. However, semantic visual understanding and numerical reasoning requirements hinder the accurate description of charts, interpreting a challenging task in chart summarization. Despite recent advancements in visual language models (VLMs), approaches lack robust mechanisms for verifying statistical fact correctness and are computationally heavy. To address this gap, this paper explores a strategy of using zero-shot learning to motivate the lightweight VLMs to perform computational reasoning, via Python programs as intermediaries to derive valid summary statistics for chart understanding. Specifically, we introduce a novel chart-to-dictionary auxiliary task, offering a more flexible representation compared to traditional chart-to-table methods, making it particularly well-suited for integration with the Program-of-Thought (PoT) strategy. Experimental results demonstrate our strategy performs on par with existing chart summarization methods across semantic and factual metrics. Code is available on https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ZeroShot-PoT-C2T-5A6B.

Most reported gains on agentic-LLM clinical benchmarks are often attributed to prompt engineering, yet our results suggest that larger improvements can come from architectural and engine-level design. We present MDIA, a Multi-agent Diagnostic Intelligence Agent implemented as a 7-node specialty-routed clinical reasoning graph, on the full HealthBench Professional benchmark (n = 525), on a non-fine-tuned LLM. MDIA achieves 0.6272 under OpenAI's GPT-5.4-2026-03-05, which is +3.72 pp above the performance of OpenAI's ChatGPT for Clinicians. The experimental work shows that performance lift is attributable to system architecture: specialty routing, multi-turn context preservation, drug-state safety gating, site-filtered search, length-aware synthesis, and engine-level reliability. These findings support the view that agentic clinical benchmark performance is shaped both by the underlying foundation model and the orchestration architecture. Nevertheless, we also noticed notable differences when using other models as a grader; in particular, when using Gemini 2.5 Pro, MDIA scored 0.6585, which suggests that the choice of grader is a source of variability. Robust evaluation of LLMs would therefore require assessment across several independent grader models.

We automatically generate feedback causal fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs) from text by teaching large-language-model agents to break the text into overlapping chunks of text. Convex mixing of these chunk FCMs gives a representative cyclic FCM knowledge graph. The text chunks can have different levels of overlap. The chunk FCMs still mix to form a new FCM causal knowledge graph. The mixing technique scales because it uses light computation with sparse causal chunk matrices. The mixing structure allows an operator-level type of Bayesian inference that produces "de-chunked" or posterior-like FCMs from the mixed FCM. These de-chunked FCMs are useful in their own right and allow further iterations of Bayesian updating. We demonstrate these mixing techniques on the essay text of Allison's "Thucydides Trap" model of conflict between a dominant power such as the United States and a rising power such as China. The FCM dynamical systems predict outcomes as they equilibrate to fixed-point or limit-cycle attractors. Seven out of 8 FCM knowledge graphs predicted a type of war when we stimulated them by turning on and keeping on the concept node that stands for the rising power's ambition and entitlement. Gemini 3.1 LLMs served as the chunking AI agents.

Complex operational workflows coordinating personnel, tools, and information are central to system operations, yet end-to-end automation remains challenging due to extensive human input requirements and limited ability to adapt over time. We present GraphMind, a system that constructs, executes, and evolves action-centric workflow graphs with minimal human effort. The system operates in three phases. First, a scalable offline pipeline extracts structured workflow graphs from large volumes of human resolution traces, capturing problems, actions, and their causal relationships. Second, an online multi-agent traversal engine navigates the graph to dynamically construct and execute workflows, combining graph-guided retrieval with LLM-driven reasoning at each step. Third, Adaptive Traversal Reinforcement (ATR) reinforces successful traversal paths, enabling execution-informed graph adaptation. GraphMind has been deployed across four production cloud database services for incident investigation. Evaluated on 93 held-out incidents and validated via blind expert review, the system outperforms an Agentic Summary-RAG baseline in mitigation reach, hallucination rate, and diagnostic throughput while requiring 8x less retrieval context. The ATR layer reduces hallucination rate by 26%, demonstrating that workflow graphs can learn from execution feedback. A 12-week field study confirms practical value: 97% of scored conversations yield actionable results within interactive latency.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized scientific text processing, they exhibit a significant capability gap when interpreting chemical reaction diagrams. We identify two fundamental bottlenecks restricting current systems: a Visual Deficit, where generic vision encoders struggle to resolve the strict topological connectivity of dense molecular graphs, and a Semantic Disconnect, where standard linear strings, such as SMILES, fail to effectively activate the model's latent chemical reasoning. To bridge these gaps, we propose the Chemical Visual Activation (ChemVA) framework, which employs a Visual Anchor mechanism to ground functional groups via hybrid-granularity detection, followed by a semantic alignment approach that translates visual features into entity names to maximize knowledge activation in LLMs. We evaluate our approach on OCRD-Bench, a newly constructed dataset featuring dense visual-semantic contexts and comprehensive reaction coverage to evaluate the full spectrum from recognition to reasoning. Extensive experiments on OCRD-Bench demonstrate that ChemVA achieves 92.0% structural recognition accuracy. By bridging visual and semantic bottlenecks, our framework delivers a consistent performance gain of approximately 20 percentage points across 9 diverse LLMs, enabling open-weight models to rival proprietary SOTA systems in complex chemical reasoning tasks.

GraphFlow is a visual workflow system designed to improve the reliability of agentic AI automation in multi-step, mission-critical processes. In these workflows, small errors compound rapidly: under an idealized model of independent steps, a ten-step process with 90% per-step reliability completes successfully only 35% of the time. Existing workflow platforms provide durable execution and observability but offer few semantic correctness guarantees, while agentic systems plan at inference time, making behavior sensitive to prompt variation and difficult to audit. GraphFlow is designed to address this gap by treating workflow diagrams as the executable specification, a single artifact defining data scope, execution semantics, and monitoring. At compile time, a restricted class of diagrams is specified to produce reusable automations whose contracts (preconditions, postconditions, and composition obligations) are intended to be proof-checked before admission to a shared library. At runtime, a durable engine records outcomes in an append-only event log and can enforce contracts at system boundaries, supporting replay, retries, and audit. Swimlanes make trust boundaries explicit, separating verified logic from external systems, human judgment, and AI decisions. A year-long pilot across three clinical sites executed 8,728 cohort-enrolled workflow runs with a 97.08% completion rate under an early prototype without the verified-core subsystem; observed failures were localized primarily to external integrations. The formal semantics and proof-checked admission model described here are specified and under active development. Evaluation of the verified core is reserved for future work.

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) is the dominant standard for interoperable exchange of healthcare data. In FHIR, electronic health records form a directed graph of resources. Answering clinically meaningful questions over FHIR requires agents to perform multi-step reasoning, filtering, and aggregation across multiple resource types. Prior work shows that even tool-augmented LLM agents (retrieval, code execution, multi-turn planning) often select the wrong resources or violate traversal constraints. We study this problem in the context of FHIR-AgentBench, a benchmark for realistic question answering over real-world hospital data, and frame reasoning on FHIR as a sequential decision-making problem over a queryable structured graph. We implement a multi-turn CodeAct agent and post-train it with reinforcement learning using a custom harness and tools. A LLM Judge provides execution-grounded rewards. Compared to prompt-based, closed-model baselines, RL post-training improves performance while enforcing data-integrity constraints. Empirically, our approach improves answer correctness from 50% (o4-mini) to 77% on FHIR-AgentBench using a smaller and cheaper Qwen3-8B model. We present an end-to-end post-training pipeline (environment building, harness construction, model training and custom evaluation) that reliably improves multi-turn reasoning over structured clinical graphs.

Arguments are a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, in which claims are supported, challenged, and weighed against one another. We present an end-to-end large language model (LLM)-based system for reconstructing arguments from natural language text into abstract argument graphs. The system follows a multi-stage pipeline that progressively identifies argumentative components, selects relevant elements, and uncovers their logical relations. These elements are represented as directed acyclic graphs consisting of two component types (premises and conclusions) and three relation types (support, attack, and undercut). We conduct two complementary experiments to evaluate the system. First, we perform a manual evaluation on arguments drawn from an argumentation theory textbook to assess the system's ability to recover argumentative structure. Second, we conduct a quantitative evaluation on benchmark datasets, allowing comparison with prior work by mapping our outputs to established annotation schemes. Results show that the system can adequately recover argumentative structures and, when adapted to different annotation schemes, achieve reasonable performance across benchmark datasets. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based pipelines for scalable argument mining.

Graph reasoning agents operating from natural-language inputs must solve a coupled problem: they must reconstruct a structured graph instance from text, decide whether existing computational assets are sufficient, interact with tools under a strict execution protocol, and satisfy an external verifier that checks structured correctness rather than textual plausibility. Existing approaches usually improve either the instruction side or the tool side in isolation, which leaves unclear what should be updated after failure. We propose EGL-SCA, a verifier-centric dual-space framework that models a graph reasoning agent using two collaborative components: an instruction-side policy space for reasoning strategies, and a tool-side program space for executable algorithmic tools. Our central mechanism is structural credit assignment, which maps trajectory evidence to conditional updates, precisely routing failures to either prompt optimization or tool synthesis and repair. To provide sufficient learning signals for dual-space adaptation, we introduce a training distribution stratified by task family, coupled with a Pareto-style retention strategy to balance success, generality, and parsimony. Experiments on four graph reasoning benchmarks show that EGL-SCA achieves a state-of-the-art 92.0% average success rate. By effectively co-evolving instructions and tools, our framework significantly outperforms both pure-prompting and fixed-toolbox baselines.

Epilepsy diagnosis and treatment require evidence-intensive reasoning across heterogeneous clinical knowledge, including biosignal patterns, genetic mechanisms, pharmacogenomics, treatment strategies, and patient outcomes. In this work, we present \textsc{EpiGraph}, a large-scale epilepsy knowledge graph and benchmark for evaluating knowledge-augmented clinical reasoning. \textsc{EpiGraph} integrates 48,166 peer-reviewed papers and seven clinical resources into a heterogeneous graph containing 24,324 entities and 32,009 evidence-grounded triplets across five clinical layers. Built upon this graph, \textsc{EpiBench} defines five clinically motivated tasks spanning clinical decision-making, EEG report generation, pharmacogenomic precision medicine, treatment recommendation, and deep research planning. We evaluate six LLMs under both standard and Graph-RAG settings. Results show that integrating \textsc{EpiGraph} consistently improves performance across all tasks, with the largest gains observed in pharmacogenomic reasoning (+30--41%). Our findings demonstrate that structured epilepsy knowledge substantially enhances evidence-grounded clinical reasoning and provides a practical benchmark framework for evaluating knowledge-augmented LLMs in real-world neurological settings. Our code is available at: https://github.com/LabRAI/EEG-KG.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely used to augment large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge. However, many benchmark datasets, designed to test RAG performance, comprise many questions that can already be answered from an LLM's parametric memory. This leads to unreliable evaluation. We refer to this phenomenon as knowledge leakage: cases where RAG tasks are solvable without retrieval. This issue worsens over time due to benchmark aging. As benchmarks are reused for training, their contents are increasingly absorbed into model parameters, making them less effective for evaluating retrieval. We introduce SeedRG, a semi-synthetic benchmark generation pipeline that mitigates knowledge leakage and addresses the issue of benchmark aging. Starting from a seed benchmark dataset, SeedRG extracts a reasoning graph from question-context pairs to capture their underlying reasoning structure, and then generates new examples via type-constrained entity replacement. This process produces structurally similar but novel instances that are unlikely to exist in the model's parametric knowledge, while preserving the original reasoning patterns. To ensure quality, we incorporate two verification steps: (1) a reasoning-graph consistency check to maintain task difficulty, and (2) a knowledge-leakage filter to exclude instances answerable without retrieval.

Discharge summaries require extracting critical information from lengthy electronic health records (EHRs), a process that is labor-intensive when performed manually. Large language models (LLMs) can improve generation efficiency; however, they are prone to producing faithfulness hallucinations, statements that contradict source records, posing direct risks to patient safety. To address this, we present CuraView, a multi-agent framework for sentence-level detection and evidence-grounded explanation of faithfulness hallucinations in discharge summaries. CuraView constructs a GraphRAG-based knowledge graph from patient-level EHRs and implements a closed-loop generation-detection pipeline with sentence-level evidence retrieval and classification spanning four evidence grades from strong support to direct contradiction (E1-E4), yielding structured and interpretable evidence chains. We evaluate CuraView on a subset of 250 patients from the Discharge-Me benchmark, with 50 patients held out for testing. Our fine-tuned Qwen3-14B detection model achieves an F1 of 0.831 on the safety-critical E4 metric (90.9% recall, 76.5% precision) and an F1 of 0.823 on E3+E4, representing a 50.0% relative improvement over the base model and outperforming RAGTruth-style and QAGS-style baselines. These results demonstrate that evidence-chain-based graph retrieval verification substantially improves the factual reliability of clinical documentation, while simultaneously producing reusable annotated datasets for downstream model training and distillation.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown considerable potential in chart understanding and reasoning tasks. However, they still struggle with high information density (HID) charts characterized by multiple subplots, legends, and dense annotations due to three major challenges: (1) limited fine-grained perception results in the omission of critical visual cues; (2) redundant or noisy visual information undermines the performance of multimodal reasoning; (3) lack of adaptive deep reasoning relative to the amount of visual information. To tackle these challenges, we present a novel focus-driven fine-grained chart reasoning model, Chart-FR1, to improve perception, focusing efficiency, and adaptive deep reasoning on HID charts. Specifically, we propose Focus-CoT, a visual focusing chain-of-thought that enhances fine-grained perception by explicitly linking reasoning steps to key visual cues, such as local image regions and OCR signals. Building on this, we introduce Focus-GRPO, a focus-driven reinforcement learning algorithm with an information-efficiency reward that compresses redundant visual information for efficient focusing, and an adaptive KL penalty mechanism that enables flexible control over reasoning depth as more visual cues are discovered. Furthermore, to fill the gap in benchmarks for HID charts, we build HID-Chart, a challenging benchmark with an information-density metric designed to evaluate fine-grained chart reasoning capabilities. Extensive experiments on multiple chart benchmarks demonstrate that Chart-FR1 outperforms state-of-the-art MLLMs in chart understanding and reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/phkhub/Chart-FR1.

System-level diagrams encode the architectural blueprint of chip design, specifying module functions, dataflows, and interface protocols. However, non-standardized symbols and the scarcity of structured training data hinder existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) from recognizing these diagrams. To address this gap, we introduce DiagramNet, the first multimodal dataset for system-level diagrams, comprising 10,977 connection annotations and 15,515 chain-of-thought QA pairs across four tasks: Listing, Localization, Connection, and Circuit QA. Building on this dataset, we propose a progressive training pipeline together with a decoupled multi-agent workflow that decomposes complex visual reasoning into Perception, Reasoning, and Knowledge stages. On the DiagramNet benchmark, integrating our 3B-parameter model with the proposed workflow surpasses the 2025 EDA Elite Challenge winner and outperforms GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.5-Pro by over 2x in end-to-end evaluation. Notably, the workflow generalizes beyond our model, boosting Task 1 performance by 128.7x for Gemini-2.5-Pro and 12.4x for GPT-5. Furthermore, with only 60 images for detector adaptation, the method transfers effectively to AMSBench, achieving zero-shot connectivity reasoning on par with GPT-5 and Claude-Sonnet-4 while surpassing the AMS state-of-the-art method Netlistify.

Generating diverse, readable statistical charts from tabular data remains challenging for LLMs, as many failures become apparent after rendering and are not detectable from data or code alone. Existing chart datasets also rarely provide fully aligned artifacts, such as executable code, dataset context, and question-answer pairs. We present a structured LLM-based workflow that decomposes chart generation into dataset screening, plot proposal, code synthesis, rendering, validation-driven refinement, description generation, and question-answer generation. By incorporating rendered-output validation, the workflow addresses visualization-specific failure modes such as readability and semantic mismatch. It treats chart generation as an inspectable process rather than a one-shot prompt-to-code task, retaining each chart with its code, dataset context, description, and question-answer pairs. Applied to UCI datasets, the workflow produces 1,500 charts from 74 datasets, spanning 24 chart families and paired with 30,003 question-answer pairs. We evaluate 16 multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) on these chart-question pairs. The results show that chart-syntax questions are nearly saturated, while value extraction, comparison, and reasoning remain more challenging, illustrating the workflow's utility for diagnostic studies of chart-grounded multimodal reasoning.