LLM-based embodied agents are increasingly evaluated on environment-grounded, long-horizon planning, yet existing benchmarks rarely test whether an agent can condition its plans on the specific user it serves. This gap points to a broader limitation in embodied task-planning systems, which often ground their reasoning only in the physical environment while overlooking the diversity of the people they serve. We frame this problem as Planning with Human Attributes (PHA), in which an agent must integrate explicit user information into long-horizon embodied task planning. We introduce Trinity, a benchmark designed to evaluate PHA capabilities. Within Trinity, a single instruction can yield different, equally valid, or even opposing outcomes depending on a user’s personal attributes. Our experiments reveal that standard off-the-shelf in-context learning-based agents commonly fail at the human-grounding component, whether or not they are provided with relevant examples, highlighting a key obstacle for PHA tasks. Beyond benchmarking, we contribute a bottom-up failure-mode analysis that isolates where and why agents break, and we distill it into concrete, model-agnostic design principles for human-agent-environment (HAE) aligned agents. We hope Trinity brings domestic robots a step closer to becoming trusted, socially acceptable partners.

Diversity in LLM mathematical reasoning is critical for exploration, but common diversity metrics mostly capture surface-level variation rather than differences in how a problem is solved. We address this gap by introducing approach-level diversity: variation in strategies across correct solutions to the same problem. Using a human-calibrated LLM judge framework, we show that prior diversity measures are unreliable proxies for approach-level diversity, and this mismatch carries over to diversity-aware RLVR, where target metrics are preserved while approach-level diversity declines. Investigating when approach-level diversity helps and whether it can be directly induced, we find that approach-diverse candidate sets improve test-time scaling. However, optimizing an LLM judge diversity reward during training causes the policy to exploit judge-specific preferences rather than broaden its approaches, leaving direct optimization of approach-level diversity as an open problem. Together, our work introduces the notion of approach-level diversity and uncovers a systematic divergence between surface- and approach-level signals, marking a step toward LLMs that reason in genuinely diverse, human-like ways.

Although auto-regressive models excel in natural language processing, they often struggle to generate diverse text and provide limited controllability. Non-auto-regressive methods could be an alternative but often produce degenerate outputs and exhibit shortcomings in conditional generation. To address these challenges, we propose Diffusion-EAGS, a novel framework that integrates conditional masked language models into diffusion language models through the theoretical lens of a conditional Markov Random Field. In doing so, we propose entropy-adaptive Gibbs sampling and entropy-based noise scheduling to counterbalance each model’s shortcomings. Experimental results show that Diffusion-EAGS outperforms baselines and achieves the best quality-diversity tradeoff, demonstrating its effectiveness in non-autoregressive text generation.

Recent advances in LLM agents have largely built on reasoning backbones like ReAct, which interleave thought and action in complex environments. However, ReAct often produces ungrounded or incoherent reasoning steps, leading to misalignment between the agent’s actual state and goals. Our analysis finds that this stems from ReAct’s inability to maintain consistent internal beliefs and goal alignment, causing compounding errors and hallucinations. To address this, we introduce ReflAct, a novel backbone that shifts reasoning from merely planning next actions to continuously reflecting on the agent’s state relative to its goal. By explicitly grounding decisions in states and enforcing ongoing goal alignment, ReflAct dramatically improves strategic reliability. This design delivers substantial empirical gains: ReflAct surpasses ReAct by 27.7% on average, achieving a 93.3% success rate in ALFWorld. Notably, ReflAct even outperforms ReAct with added enhancement modules (e.g., Reflexion, WKM), showing that strengthening the core reasoning backbone is key to reliable agent performance.

In the pursuit of developing Large Language Models (LLMs) that adhere to societal standards, it is imperative to detect the toxicity in the generated text. The majority of existing toxicity metrics rely on encoder models trained on specific toxicity datasets, which are susceptible to out-of-distribution (OOD) problems and depend on the dataset’s definition of toxicity. In this paper, we introduce a robust metric grounded on LLMs to flexibly measure toxicity according to the given definition. We first analyze the toxicity factors, followed by an examination of the intrinsic toxic attributes of LLMs to ascertain their suitability as evaluators. Finally, we evaluate the performance of our metric with detailed analysis. Our empirical results demonstrate outstanding performance in measuring toxicity within verified factors, improving on conventional metrics by 12 points in the F1 score. Our findings also indicate that upstream toxicity significantly influences downstream metrics, suggesting that LLMs are unsuitable for toxicity evaluations within unverified factors.

A well-formulated benchmark plays a critical role in spurring advancements in the natural language processing (NLP) field, as it allows objective and precise evaluation of diverse models. As modern language models (LMs) have become more elaborate and sophisticated, more difficult benchmarks that require linguistic knowledge and reasoning have been proposed. However, most of these benchmarks only support English, and great effort is necessary to construct benchmarks for other low resource languages. To this end, we propose a new benchmark named Korean balanced evaluation of significant tasks (KoBEST), which consists of five Korean-language downstream tasks. Professional Korean linguists designed the tasks that require advanced Korean linguistic knowledge. Moreover, our data is purely annotated by humans and thoroughly reviewed to guarantee high data quality. We also provide baseline models and human performance results. Our dataset is available on the Huggingface.