Legal Case Retrieval (LCR) identifies relevant precedent cases to support legal reasoning and sentencing. A core challenge for cross-system LCR is the structural divergence between legal systems: civil-law systems provide explicit statutory hierarchies but lack inter-case citations, while common-law systems offer rich citation networks but lack uniform codified semantic hierarchies. Existing methods exploit only one side of this divide, remaining system-specific. We propose DSLaw, which unifies both systems by implicitly modeling hierarchical semantics through residual quantization and using the resulting discrete representations as semantic anchors for cross-case graph reasoning. By progressively decomposing legal semantics from coarse concepts to fine-grained distinctions, DSLaw constructs implicit connections even without explicit citations. Experiments on COLIEE2025 (common law) and ELAM (civil law) show DSLaw consistently outperforms strong baselines, while joint training further validates cross-system generalization. The implementation is provided at https://github.com/KDEGroup/DSLaw.

Recommender agents built on Large Language Models offer a promising paradigm for personalized recommendation. However, existing agents typically suffer from a misalignment between their tool-integrated reasoning trajectories and recommendation feedback, limiting their ability to distinguish fine-grained user preferences. To address these challenges, we propose AgenticRec, an agentic recommendation framework that formulates recommendation as a tool-integrated reasoning process over a recommendation-oriented tool suite. Built upon this framework, we further develop a dedicated two-stage training paradigm tailored for recommender agents. In the first stage, we introduce Recommendation-Oriented Trajectory Activation, optimize the agentic recommendation ability under implicit feedback. In the second stage, Progressive Preference Refinement further refines the agent through bidirectional preference reasoning over self-bootstrapped hard pairs, progressively sharpening preference boundaries. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AgenticRec.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems commonly suffer from Knowledge Conflicts, where retrieved external knowledge contradicts the inherent, parametric knowledge of large language models (LLMs). It adversely affects performance on downstream tasks such as question answering (QA). Existing approaches often attempt to mitigate conflicts by directly comparing two knowledge sources in a side-by-side manner, but this can overwhelm LLMs with extraneous or lengthy contexts, ultimately hindering their ability to identify and mitigate inconsistencies. To address this issue, we propose Micro-Act a framework with a hierarchical action space that automatically perceives context complexity and adaptively decomposes each knowledge source into a sequence of fine-grained comparisons. These comparisons are represented as actionable steps, enabling reasoning beyond the superficial context. Through extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets, Micro-Act consistently achieves significant increase in QA accuracy over state-of-the-art baselines across all 5 datasets and 3 conflict types, especially in temporal and semantic types where all baselines fail significantly. More importantly, Micro-Act exhibits robust performance on non-conflict questions simultaneously, highlighting its practical value in real-world RAG applications.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the performance of multi-hop question answering (MHQA) systems. Despite the success of MHQA systems, the evaluation of MHQA is not deeply investigated. Existing evaluations mainly focus on comparing the final answers of the reasoning method and given ground-truths. We argue that the reasoning process should also be evaluated because wrong reasoning process can also lead to the correct final answers. Motivated by this, we propose a “Planner-Executor-Reasoner” (PER) architecture, which forms the core of the Plan-anchored Data Preprocessing (PER-DP) and the Plan-guided Multi-Hop QA (PER-QA).The former provides the ground-truth of intermediate reasoning steps and final answers, and the latter offers them of a reasoning method. Moreover, we design a fine-grained evaluation metric called Plan-aligned Stepwise Evaluation (PSE), which evaluates the intermediate reasoning steps from two aspects: planning and solving. Extensive experiments on ten types of questions demonstrate competitive reasoning performance, improved explainability of the MHQA system, and uncover issues such as “fortuitous reasoning continuance” and “latent reasoning suspension” in RAG-based MHQA systems. Besides, we also demonstrate the potential of our approach in data contamination scenarios.