Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have fundamentally reshaped artificial intelligence by integrating external tools and planning capabilities. While memory mechanisms have emerged as the architectural cornerstone of these systems, current research remains fragmented, oscillating between operating system engineering and cognitive science. This theoretical divide prevents a unified view of technological synthesis and a coherent evolutionary perspective. To bridge this gap, this survey proposes a novel evolutionary framework for LLM agent memory mechanisms, formalizing the development process into three stages: Storage (trajectory preservation), Reflection (trajectory refinement), and Experience (trajectory abstraction). We first formally define these three stages before analyzing the three core drivers of this evolution: the necessity for long-range consistency, the challenges in dynamic environments, and the ultimate goal of continual learning. Furthermore, we specifically explore two transformative mechanisms in the frontier Experience stage: proactive exploration and cross-trajectory abstraction. By synthesizing these disparate views, this work offers robust design principles and a clear roadmap for the development of next-generation LLM agents.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves multi-step mathematical problem solving in large language models but remains vulnerable to exposure bias and error accumulation, as early mistakes propagate irreversibly through autoregressive decoding. In this work, we propose DiffCoT, a diffusion-styled CoT framework that reformulates CoT reasoning as an iterative denoising process. DiffCoT integrates diffusion principles at the reasoning-step level via a sliding-window mechanism, enabling unified generation and retrospective correction of intermediate steps while preserving token-level autoregression. To maintain causal consistency, we further introduce a causal diffusion noise schedule that respects the temporal structure of reasoning chains. Extensive experiments on three multi-step CoT reasoning benchmarks across diverse model backbones demonstrate that DiffCoT consistently outperforms existing CoT preference optimization methods, yielding improved robustness and error-correction capability in CoT reasoning.

Current multimodal fake news detectors predominantly function as opaque classifiers, offering limited deductive transparency and little insight into how conflicting evidence is reconciled. To address this limitation, we propose Dialectical Structured Reasoning (DSR), a framework modeling fake news detection as an explicit dialectical process over multimodal social context. DSR instantiates two opposing agents: a Verifier, which constructs evidence paths supporting semantic consistency, and a Debunker, which actively explores exposing logical or factual contradictions. Then a differentiable Judge agent adjudicates between these competing perspectives by integrating local evidence with global parametric knowledge. Experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate that DSR achieves state-of-the-art performance while producing transparent, dialectically grounded explanations that closely mirror human reasoning process.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has improved LLM reasoning, but models often generate explanations that appear coherent while containing unfaithful intermediate steps. Existing self-evaluation approaches are prone to inherent biases: the model may confidently endorse coherence even when the step-to-step implication is not valid, leading to unreliable faithfulness evaluation. We propose FACT-E, a causality-inspired framework for evaluating CoT quality. FACT-E uses controlled perturbations as an instrumental signal to separate genuine step-to-step dependence from bias-driven artifacts, producing more reliable faithfulness estimates (intra-chain faithfulness). To select trustworthy trajectories, FACT-E jointly considers intra-chain faithfulness and CoT-to-answer consistency, ensuring that selected chains are both faithful internally and supportive of the correct final answer. Experiments on GSM8K, MATH, and CommonsenseQA show that FACT-E improves reasoning-trajectory selection and yields stronger in-context learning exemplars. FACT-E also reliably detects flawed reasoning under noisy conditions, providing a robust metric for trustworthy LLM reasoning.

The prevalence of fake news on social media calls for automated fact-checking systems that deliver not only accurate verdicts but also faithful explanations. However, existing large language model (LLM)-based methods often overlook deceptive misinformation styles in generated explanations, producing unfaithful rationales that may mislead human judgment. They also rely heavily on external knowledge sources, which can introduce hallucinations and incur substantial latency, undermining both reliability and responsiveness in real-time settings. To address these limitations, we propose REason-guided Fact-checking with Latent EXplanations (REFLEX), a self-refining framework that explicitly controls reasoning style by anchoring explanations to the predicted verdict. REFLEX leverages self-disagreement veracity signals between a backbone model and its fine-tuned variant to construct steering vectors, thereby naturally disentangling factual content from stylistic cues. Experiments on a real-world benchmark show that REFLEX achieves state-of-the-art performance under LLaMA-series models using only 465 self-refined samples. Owing to its transferability, REFLEX also yields gains of up to 7.54 Macro-F1 points on in-the-wild data. Further analysis shows that our method effectively mitigates faithful hallucination, leading to both more reliable explanations and more accurate verdicts than prior explainable fact-checking approaches.

Recent advancements in large multimodal models (LMMs) have showcased impressive code generation capabilities, primarily evaluated through image-to-code benchmarks. However, these benchmarks are limited to specific visual programming scenarios where the logic reasoning and the multimodal understanding capacities are split apart. To fill this gap, we propose ScratchEval, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the visual programming reasoning ability of LMMs. ScratchEval is based on Scratch, a block-based visual programming language widely used in children’s programming education. By integrating visual elements and embedded programming logic, ScratchEval requires the model to process both visual information and code structure, thereby comprehensively evaluating its programming intent understanding ability. Our evaluation approach goes beyond the traditional image-to-code mapping and focuses on unified logical thinking and problem-solving abilities, providing a more comprehensive and challenging framework for evaluating the visual programming ability of LMMs. ScratchEval not only fills the gap in existing evaluation methods, but also provides new insights for the future development of LMMs in the field of visual programming.

Human behaviors are often guided or constrained by social norms, which are defined as shared, commonsense rules. For example, underlying an action report a witnessed crime are social norms that inform our conduct, such as It is expected to be brave to report crimes. Current AI systems that assess valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human actions by leveraging large-scale data training not grounded on explicit norms may be difficult to explain, and thus untrustworthy. Emulating human assessors by considering social norms can help AI models better understand and predict valence. While multiple norms come into play, conflicting norms can create tension and directly influence human behavior. For example, when deciding whether to report a witnessed crime, one may balance bravery against self-protection. In this paper, we introduce ClarityEthic, a novel ethical assessment approach, to enhance valence prediction and explanation by generating conflicting social norms behind human actions, which strengthens the moral reasoning capabilities of language models by using a contrastive learning strategy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms strong baseline approaches, and human evaluations confirm that the generated social norms provide plausible explanations for the assessment of human behaviors.

The ability of critique is vital for models to self-improve and serve as reliable AI assistants. While extensively studied in language-only settings, multimodal critique of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) remains underexplored despite their growing capabilities in tasks like captioning and visual reasoning. In this work, we introduce e MM-CRITIC, a holistic benchmark for evaluating the critique ability of LMMs across multiple dimensions: basic, correction, and comparison. Covering 8 main task types and over 500 tasks, e MM-CRITIC collects responses from various LMMs with different model sizes and is composed of 4471 samples. To enhance the evaluation reliability, we integrate expert-informed ground answers into scoring rubrics that guide GPT-4o in annotating responses and generating reference critiques, which serve as anchors for trustworthy judgments. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of e MM-CRITIC and provide a comprehensive assessment of leading LMMs’ critique capabilities under multiple dimensions. Further analysis reveals some key insights, including the correlation between response quality and critique, and varying critique difficulty across evaluation dimensions. Our code is available at https://github.com/MichealZeng0420/MM-Critic.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit knowledge disparities across languages. Encouraging LLMs to abstain when faced with knowledge gaps is a promising strategy to reduce hallucinations in multilingual settings. Current abstention strategies for multilingual scenarios primarily rely on generating feedback in various languages using LLMs and performing self-reflection. However, these methods can be adversely impacted by inaccuracies and biases in the generated feedback. To address this, from a causal perspective, we introduce CausalAbstain, a method that helps LLMs determine whether to utilize multiple generated feedback responses and how to identify the most useful ones. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CausalAbstain effectively selects helpful feedback and enhances abstention decisions with interpretability in both native language (Casual-native) and multilingual (Causal-multi) settings, outperforming strong baselines on two benchmark datasets covering encyclopedic and commonsense knowledge QA tasks.

The advanced role-playing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled rich interactive scenarios, yet existing research in social interactions neglects hallucination while struggling with poor generalizability and implicit character fidelity judgments. To bridge this gap, motivated by human behaviour, we introduce a generalizable and explicit paradigm for uncovering interactive patterns of LLMs across diverse worldviews. Specifically, we first define interactive hallucination through stance transfer, then construct SHARP, a benchmark built by extracting relations from commonsense knowledge graphs and utilizing LLMs’ inherent hallucination properties to simulate multi-role interactions. Extensive experiments confirm our paradigm’s effectiveness and stability, examine the factors that influence these metrics, and challenge conventional hallucination mitigation solutions. More broadly, our work reveals a fundamental limitation in popular post-training methods for role-playing LLMs: the tendency to obscure knowledge beneath style, resulting in monotonous yet human-like behaviors—interactive hallucination.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in vision-language tasks, but their application in the medical field remains underexplored, particularly for integrating structured time series data with unstructured clinical notes. In clinical practice, dynamic time series data, such as lab test results, capture critical temporal patterns, while clinical notes provide rich semantic context. Merging these modalities is challenging due to the inherent differences between continuous signals and discrete text. To bridge this gap, we introduce ProMedTS, a novel self-supervised multimodal framework that employs prompt-guided learning to unify these heterogeneous data types. Our approach leverages lightweight anomaly detection to generate anomaly captions that serve as prompts, guiding the encoding of raw time series data into informative prompt embeddings. These prompt embeddings are aligned with textual representations in a shared latent space, preserving fine-grained temporal nuances alongside semantic insights. Furthermore, our framework incorporates tailored self-supervised objectives to enhance both intra- and inter-modal alignment. We evaluate ProMedTS on disease diagnosis tasks using real-world datasets, and the results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches.

The proliferation of memes on social media necessitates the capabilities of multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) to effectively understand multimodal harmfulness. Existing evaluation approaches predominantly focus on mLLMs’ detection accuracy for binary classification tasks, which often fail to reflect the in-depth interpretive nuance of harmfulness across diverse contexts. In this paper, we propose MemeArena, an agent-based arena-style evaluation framework that provides a context-aware and unbiased assessment for mLLMs’ understanding of multimodal harmfulness. Specifically, MemeArena simulates diverse interpretive contexts to formulate evaluation tasks that elicit perspective-specific analyses from mLLMs. By integrating varied viewpoints and reaching consensus among evaluators, it enables fair and unbiased comparisons of mLLMs’ abilities to interpret multimodal harmfulness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework effectively reduces the evaluation biases of judge agents, with judgment results closely aligning with human preferences, offering valuable insights into reliable and comprehensive mLLM evaluations in multimodal harmfulness understanding. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Lbotirx/MemeArena.

Interpretation is critical for disease diagnosis, but existing models struggle to balance predictive accuracy with human-understandable rationales. While large language models (LLMs) offer strong reasoning abilities, their clinical use is limited by high computational costs and restricted multimodal reasoning ability. Small language models (SLMs) are efficient but lack advanced reasoning for integrating multimodal medical data. In addition, both LLMs and SLMs lack domain knowledge for trustworthy reasoning. Therefore, we propose ClinRaGen, enhancing SLMs by leveraging LLM-derived reasoning ability via rationale distillation and domain knowledge injection for trustworthy multimodal rationale generation. Key innovations include a sequential rationale distillation framework that equips SLMs with LLM-comparable multimodal reasoning abilities, and a knowledge-augmented attention mechanism that jointly unifies multimodal representation from time series and textual data in the same encoding space, enabling it to be naturally interpreted by SLMs while incorporating domain knowledge for reliable rationale generation. Experiments on real-world medical datasets show that ClinRaGen achieves state-of-the-art performance in disease diagnosis and rationale generation, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining LLM-driven reasoning with knowledge augmentation for improved interpretability.

The proliferation of multimodal memes in the social media era demands that multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) effectively understand meme harmfulness. Existing benchmarks for assessing mLLMs on harmful meme understanding rely on accuracy-based, model-agnostic evaluations using static datasets. These benchmarks are limited in their ability to provide up-to-date and thorough assessments, as online memes evolve dynamically. To address this, we propose AdamMeme, a flexible, agent-based evaluation framework that adaptively probes the reasoning capabilities of mLLMs in deciphering meme harmfulness. Through multi-agent collaboration, AdamMeme provides comprehensive evaluations by iteratively updating the meme data with challenging samples, thereby exposing specific limitations in how mLLMs interpret harmfulness. Extensive experiments show that our framework systematically reveals the varying performance of different target mLLMs, offering in-depth, fine-grained analyses of model-specific weaknesses. Our code is available at https://github.com/Lbotirx/AdamMeme.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies. However, existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics, which fail to automatically evaluate the justification production and uncover the nuanced limitations of LLMs in fact-checking. In this work, we introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs’ fact-checking capabilities. Leveraging importance sampling principles and multi-agent collaboration, FACT-AUDIT generates adaptive and scalable datasets, performs iterative model-centric evaluations, and updates assessments based on model-specific responses. By incorporating justification production alongside verdict prediction, this framework provides a comprehensive and evolving audit of LLMs’ factual reasoning capabilities, to investigate their trustworthiness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FACT-AUDIT effectively differentiates among state-of-the-art LLMs, providing valuable insights into model strengths and limitations in model-centric fact-checking analysis.

Data synthesis has become a crucial research area in large language models (LLMs), especially for generating high-quality instruction fine-tuning data to enhance downstream performance. In code generation, a key application of LLMs, manual annotation of code instruction data is costly. Recent methods, such as Code Evol-Instruct and OSS-Instruct, leverage LLMs to synthesize large-scale code instruction data, significantly improving LLM coding capabilities. However, these approaches face limitations due to unidirectional synthesis and randomness-driven generation, which restrict data quality and diversity. To overcome these challenges, we introduce Tree-of-Evolution (ToE), a novel framework that models code instruction synthesis process with a tree structure, exploring multiple evolutionary paths to alleviate the constraints of unidirectional generation. Additionally, we propose optimization-driven evolution, which refines each generation step based on the quality of the previous iteration. Experimental results across five widely-used coding benchmarks—HumanEval, MBPP, EvalPlus, LiveCodeBench, and BigCodeBench—demonstrate that base models fine-tuned on just 75k data synthesized by our method achieve comparable or superior performance to the state-of-the-art open-weight Code LLM, Qwen2.5-Coder-Instruct, which was fine-tuned on millions of samples.