Multimodal modeling represents a vital step from modality-agnostic reasoning toward world modeling. While early approaches predominantly rely on late-fusion that assembles encoders and frozen language backbones with output heads, recent efforts have shifted the paradigm toward native multimodal modeling (NMM) with the intrinsic integration of modalities for superior multimodal performance. Despite its potential, the design space of native architectures remains insufficiently defined. In this paper, we present the community with a formalized roadmap for this transition. Specifically, we formally define the architectural nativity, distinguishing mid-fusion and early-fusion from non-native paradigms. We further organize the existing native models through the lens of input-output duality into three categories: (i) Multi-to-Text for cross-modal comprehension with text-only output; (ii) Multi-to-Target for scenario-oriented generation e.g., image, audio and video generation, and (iii) Multi-to-Multi for unified modeling with symmetric input-output. We systematically unpack the end-to-end pipeline from industrial perspectives from: architectural coordination, massive data curation, to full-stack training recipes, inference deployment, and evaluation. Finally, based on our assessment of native multimodal development trends, we provide a forward-looking perspective on its future trajectory.

Evaluating the exhaustive search capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is plagued by a fundamental paradox: verifying completeness requires complete ground truth, yet high-entropy enumeration tasks make such ground truth impossible for humans to create. This causes benchmarks to systematically penalize models for outperforming their human annotators. Despite rapid progress in web-search and deep research agents—which now issue hundreds of queries, traverse diverse sites, and synthesize long reports—evaluation still largely relies on partially annotated answer sets, LLM-based judges, or single-answer questions that avoid genuinely exhaustive search scenarios.We break this paradox by shifting the evaluation paradigm from simulating a messy reality to constructing computationally pure challenges. We introduce VERITAS (Verifiable Traversal Assessment for Search), a framework built on the principle of computationally irreducible constraints. By introducing novel, non-optimizable constraints, we create verifiable, sparse-answer search tasks that are computationally equivalent to exhaustive enumeration. These constraints are easy to verify but impossible for LLMs or search engines to optimize, forcing agents to genuinely traverse the entire search space. VERITAS can automatically generate a virtually infinite number of test cases with perfect ground truth and precise difficulty control, with marginal instance cost dominated by hash computations. This provides not only a robust benchmark for evaluating systematic exploration under uncertainty but also a scalable method for generating training data to improve these crucial, yet underdeveloped, capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from performing end-to-end mathematical reasoning to integrating agentic intelligence. However, most existing math benchmarks evaluate only final answers. This outcome-oriented evaluation provides limited diagnostic value for identifying process-level failures or rigorous logic, failing to guide the transformation of LLMs into robust agents. To bridge this gap, we present a process-level benchmark designed to evaluate the inherent agentic mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our framework aligns problem-solving agentic behaviors with a structured taxonomy of reusable mathematical atomic capabilities. We design a comprehensive suite of planning, action, and feedback tasks across both textual and multimodal contexts, supported by an automated pipeline that synthesizes high-quality trajectories and produces fine-grained annotations via controlled LLM rewriting. Experiments reveal that models with stronger end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles. This demonstrates that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances the response capabilities of language models by integrating external knowledge sources. However, document chunking as an important part of RAG system often lacks effective evaluation tools. This paper first analyzes why existing RAG evaluation benchmarks are inadequate for assessing document chunking quality, specifically due to evidence sparsity. Based on this conclusion, we propose HiCBench, which includes manually annotated multi-level document chunking points, synthesized evidence-dense question answer(QA) pairs, and their corresponding evidence sources. We also propose HiChunk, a hierarchical document structuring framework using fine-tuned LLMs and the Auto-Merge retrieval algorithm to enhance retrieval quality. Experiments demonstrate that HiCBench effectively evaluates the impact of different chunking methods across the entire RAG pipeline. Moreover, HiChunk achieves better chunking quality within reasonable time consumption, thereby enhancing the overall performance of RAG systems. Source code is available at https://github.com/TencentCloudADP/hichunk.