When retrieved evidence contradicts an agent’s prior beliefs, does it revise its answer, acknowledge uncertainty, or persist with an incorrect conclusion? Existing evaluations of agentic systems focus primarily on task success, offering limited insight into how agents handle such conflicts. We propose to evaluate agents on epistemic humility (EH): the agent’s willingness to recognize, act on, and communicate uncertainty during task execution. We operationalize EH through three trajectory-level behavioral dimensions: _Identify_, _Solve_, and _Escalate_ (ISE). Through _knowledge conflict_, situations where the backbone language model’s parametric knowledge contradicts the evidence it encounters, or where two contextual sources disagree, we build a two-level evaluation framework: (1) controlled single-step conflicts, and (2) naturally occurring conflicts during multi-step agentic executions, each level paired with matched no-conflict controls. Evaluating four agents, we find an inverse relationship between task accuracy and epistemic humility: the most accurate agents are often the most likely to give overconfident answers despite recognizing conflicts or risks. Trajectory-level analysis further reveals that agents frequently detect conflicts in early steps of execution but fail to maintain or resolve them in later steps. Finally, we show that Model-level interventions can improve EH, but often at the cost of task accuracy, suggesting that epistemic humility emerges from the interaction among the backbone model, agent harness, and evaluation environment.

Equipping LLM agents with reusable skills derived from past experience has become a popular and successful approach for tackling complex and long-horizon tasks. However, such lessons are often encoded as textual guidance that remains largely advisory, lacking explicit mechanisms for when and how to intervene in the agent loop. To bridge the gap, we introduce HASP (Harnessing LLM Agents with Skill Programs), a new framework that upgrades skills into executable Program Functions (PFs). Rather than offering passive advice, PFs act as executable guardrails that activate on failure-prone states and modify the next action or inject corrective context. HASP is highly modular: it can be applied at inference time for direct agent-loop intervention, during post-training to provide structured supervision, or for self-improvement by evolving validated, teacher-reviewed PFs. Empirically, HASP drives substantial gains compared to both training-free and training-based methods on web-search, math reasoning, and coding tasks. For example, on web-search reasoning, inference-time PFs alone improve the average performance by 25% compared to (multi-loop) ReAct Agent, while post-training and controlled evolution achieve a 30.4% gain over Search-R1. To provide deeper insights into HASP, our mechanism analysis reveals how PFs trigger and intervene, how skills are internalized, and the requirement for stable skill library evolution.

We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 4,000 expert-annotated examples across four subsets, each focusing on a type of scenario that frequently arises in real-world financial domains. We assess a broad spectrum of 25 LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) significantly lags behind human experts. Our detailed findings and insights highlight the strengths and limitations of existing LLMs in this new task. We believe FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLM capabilities in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.

Recent LLMs have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving exam-like math word problems. However, the degree to which these numerical reasoning skills are effective in real-world scenarios, particularly in expert domains, is still largely unexplored. This paper introduces DocMath-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the numerical reasoning capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing specialized documents containing both text and tables. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 48 LLMs with Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods, aiming to comprehensively assess the capabilities and limitations of existing LLMs in DocMath-Eval. We found that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) still significantly lags behind human experts in solving complex numerical reasoning problems grounded in long contexts. We believe that DocMath-Eval can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capabilities in solving challenging numerical reasoning problems within expert domains.

We introduce FinanceMath, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs’ capabilities in solving knowledge-intensive math reasoning problems. Compared to prior works, this study features three core advancements. First, FinanceMath includes 1,200 problems with a hybrid of textual and tabular content. These problems require college-level knowledge in the finance domain for effective resolution. Second, we provide expert-annotated, detailed solution references in Python program format, ensuring a high-quality benchmark for LLM assessment. We also construct a finance-domain knowledge bank and investigate various knowledge integration strategies. Finally, we evaluate a wide spectrum of 44 LLMs with both Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods. Our experimental results reveal that the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) achieves only 60.9% accuracy using CoT prompting, leaving substantial room for improvement. Moreover, while augmenting LLMs with external knowledge can improve model performance (e.g., from 47.5% to 54.5% for Gemini-1.5-Pro), their accuracy remains significantly lower than the estimated human expert performance of 92%. We believe that FinanceMath can advance future research in the area of domain-specific knowledge retrieval and integration, particularly within the context of solving reasoning-intensive tasks.