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.

Large language model agents receive instructions from many sources—system messages, user prompts, tool outputs, other agents, and more—each carrying different levels of trust and authority. When these instructions conflict, agents must reliably follow the highest-privilege instruction to remain safe and effective. The dominant paradigm, instruction hierarchy (IH), assumes a fixed, small set of privilege levels (typically fewer than five) defined by rigid role labels (e.g., system > user). This is inadequate for real-world agentic settings, where conflicts can arise across far more sources and contexts. In this work, we propose Many-Tier Instruction Hierarchy (ManyIH), a paradigm for resolving instruction conflicts among instructions with arbitrarily many privilege levels. We introduce ManyIH-Bench, the first benchmark for ManyIH, requiring models to navigate up to 12 levels of conflicting instructions with varying privileges, comprising 853 agentic tasks (427 coding and 426 instruction-following). ManyIH-Bench composes constraints developed by LLMs and verified by humans to create realistic and difficult test cases spanning 46 real-world agents. Our experiments show that even current frontier models perform poorly (~40% accuracy), underscoring the urgent need for methods that target fine-grained, scalable instruction conflict resolution in agentic settings.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has delivered impressive gains in mathematical and multimodal reasoning and has become a standard post-training paradigm for contemporary language and vision-language models. However, the RLVR recipe introduces a significant risk of capability regression, where models forget foundational skills after prolonged training without employing regularization strategies. We empirically confirm this concern, observing that open-source reasoning models suffer performance degradation on core capabilities such as perception and faithfulness. While imposing regularization terms like KL divergence can help prevent deviation from the base model, these terms are calculated on the current task, thus they do not guarantee broader knowledge. Meanwhile, commonly used experience replay across heterogeneous domains makes it nontrivial to decide how much training focus each objective should receive. To address this, we propose RECAP—a replay strategy with dynamic objective reweighting for general knowledge preservation. Our reweighting mechanism adapts in an online manner using short-horizon signals of convergence and instability, shifting the post-training focus away from saturated objectives and toward underperforming or volatile ones. Our method is end-to-end and readily applicable to existing RLVR pipelines without training additional models or heavy tuning. Extensive experiments on benchmarks based on Qwen2.5-VL-3B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which not only preserves general capabilities but also improves reasoning by enabling more flexible trade-offs among in-task rewards.

To trust the fluent generations of large language models (LLMs), humans must be able to verify their correctness against trusted, external sources. Recent efforts, such as providing citations via retrieved documents or post-hoc provenance, enhance verifiability but provide no guarantees on their correctness. To address these limitations, we tackle the verifiability goal with a different philosophy: _trivializing the verification process by developing models that quote verbatim statements from trusted sources in their pre-training data._We propose Quote-Tuning, which demonstrates the feasibility of aligning models to quote. The core of Quote-Tuning is a fast membership inference function that efficiently verifies text against trusted corpora. We leverage this tool to design a reward function to quantify quotes in model responses, and curate datasets for preference learning. Experiments show that Quote-Tuning significantly increases verbatim quotes from high-quality documents by up to 130% relative to base models while maintaining response quality. Quote-Tuning is applicable in different tasks, generalizes to out-of-domain data and diverse model families, and provides additional benefits to truthfulness. Our method not only serves as a hassle-free method to increase quoting but also opens up avenues for improving LLM trustworthiness through better verifiability.

Can advanced multi-modal models effectively tackle complex web-based tasks? Such tasks are often found on crowdsourcing platforms, where crowdworkers engage in challenging micro-tasks within web-based environments.Building on this idea, we present TurkingBench, a benchmark consisting of tasks presented as web pages with textual instructions and multi-modal contexts. Unlike previous approaches that rely on artificially synthesized web pages, our benchmark uses natural HTML pages originally designed for crowdsourcing workers to perform various annotation tasks. Each task’s HTML instructions are instantiated with different values derived from crowdsourcing tasks, creating diverse instances. This benchmark includes 32.2K instances spread across 158 tasks.To support the evaluation of TurkingBench, we have developed a framework that links chatbot responses to actions on web pages (e.g., modifying a text box, selecting a radio button). We assess the performance of cutting-edge private and open-source models, including language-only and vision-language models (such as GPT4 and InternVL), on this benchmark. Our results show that while these models outperform random chance, there is still significant room for improvement. We hope that this benchmark will drive progress in the evaluation and development of web-based agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly deployed in critical applications, raising urgent needs for robust safety benchmarking. We propose Jailbreak Distillation (JBDistill), a novel benchmark construction framework that “distills” jailbreak attacks into high-quality and easily-updatable safety benchmarks. JBDistill utilizes a small set of development models and existing jailbreak attack algorithms to create a candidate prompt pool, then employs prompt selection algorithms to identify an effective subset of prompts as safety benchmarks. JBDistill addresses challenges in existing safety evaluation: the use of consistent evaluation prompts across models ensures fair comparisons and reproducibility. It requires minimal human effort to rerun the JBDistill pipeline and produce updated benchmarks, alleviating concerns on saturation and contamination. Extensive experiments demonstrate our benchmarks generalize robustly to 13 diverse evaluation models held out from benchmark construction, including proprietary, specialized, and newer-generation LLMs, significantly outperforming existing safety benchmarks in effectiveness while maintaining high separability and diversity. Our framework thus provides an effective, sustainable, and adaptable solution for streamlining safety evaluation.

Hallucinations pose a challenge to the application of large language models (LLMs) thereby motivating the development of metrics to evaluate factual precision. We observe that popular metrics using the Decompose-Then-Verify framework, such as FActScore, can be manipulated by adding obvious or repetitive subclaims to artificially inflate scores. This observation motivates our new customizable plug-and-play subclaim selection component called Core, which filters down individual subclaims according to their uniqueness and informativeness. We show that many popular factual precision metrics augmented by Core are substantially more robust on a wide range of knowledge domains. We release an evaluation framework supporting easy and modular use of Core and various decomposition strategies, which we recommend adoption by the community. We also release an expansion of the FActScore biography dataset to facilitate further studies of decomposition-based factual precision evaluation.

The exposure of large language models (LLMs) to copyrighted material during pre-training raises concerns about unintentional copyright infringement post deployment. This has driven the development of “copyright takedown” methods—post-training approaches aimed at preventing models from generating content substantially similar to copyrighted ones. While current mitigation approaches are somewhat effective for average-case risks, we demonstrate that they overlook worst-case copyright risks exhibited by the existence of long, verbatim quotes from copyrighted sources. We propose BloomScrub, a remarkably simple yet highly effective inference-time approach that provides certified copyright takedown. Our method repeatedly interleaves quote detection with rewriting techniques to transform potentially infringing segments. By leveraging efficient data sketches (Bloom filters), our approach enables scalable copyright screening—even for large-scale real-world corpora. When quotes beyond a length threshold cannot be removed, the system can abstain from responding, offering certified risk reduction. Experimental results show that BloomScrub reduces infringement risk, preserves utility, and accommodates different levels of enforcement stringency with adaptive abstention. Our results suggest that lightweight, inference-time methods can be surprisingly effective for copyright prevention.

The reasoning steps generated by LLMs might be incomplete, as they mimic logical leaps common in everyday communication found in their pre-training data: underlying rationales are frequently left implicit (unstated). To address this challenge, we introduce RATIONALYST, a model for process-supervision of reasoning based on pre-training on a vast collection of rationale annotations extracted from unlabeled data. We extract 79k rationales from web-scale unlabelled dataset (the Pile) and a combination of reasoning datasets with minimal human intervention. This web-scale pre-training for reasoning allows RATIONALYST to consistently generalize across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematical, commonsense, scientific, and logical reasoning. Fine-tuned from LLaMa-3-8B, RATIONALYST improves the accuracy of reasoning by an average of 3.9% on 7 representative reasoning benchmarks. It also demonstrates superior performance compared to significantly larger verifiers like GPT-4 and similarly sized models fine-tuned on matching training sets.

As the influence of large language models (LLMs) spans across global communities, their safety challenges in multilingual settings become paramount for alignment research. This paper examines the variations in safety challenges faced by LLMs across different languages and discusses approaches to alleviating such concerns. By comparing how state-of-the-art LLMs respond to the same set of malicious prompts written in higher- vs. lower-resource languages,we observe that (1) LLMs tend to generate unsafe responses much more often when a malicious prompt is written in a lower-resource language, and (2) LLMs tend to generate more irrelevant responses to malicious prompts in lower-resource languages. To understand where the discrepancy can be attributed, we study the effect of instruction tuning with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or supervised finetuning (SFT) on the HH-RLHF dataset. Surprisingly, while training with high-resource languages improves model alignment, training in lower-resource languages yields minimal improvement. This suggests that the bottleneck of cross-lingual alignment is rooted in the pretraining stage. Our findings highlight the challenges in cross-lingual LLM safety, and we hope they inform future research in this direction.