Daily Papers

As LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents, agentic reasoning - the ability to combine tool use, especially search, and reasoning - becomes a critical skill. However, it is hard to disentangle agentic reasoning when evaluated in complex environments and tasks. Current agent benchmarks often mix agentic reasoning with challenging math reasoning, expert-level knowledge, and other advanced capabilities. To fill this gap, we build a novel benchmark, GSM-Agent, where an LLM agent is required to solve grade-school-level reasoning problems, but is only presented with the question in the prompt without the premises that contain the necessary information to solve the task, and needs to proactively collect that information using tools. Although the original tasks are grade-school math problems, we observe that even frontier models like GPT-5 only achieve 67% accuracy. To understand and analyze the agentic reasoning patterns, we propose the concept of agentic reasoning graph: cluster the environment's document embeddings into nodes, and map each tool call to its nearest node to build a reasoning path. Surprisingly, we identify that the ability to revisit a previously visited node, widely taken as a crucial pattern in static reasoning, is often missing for agentic reasoning for many models. Based on the insight, we propose a tool-augmented test-time scaling method to improve LLM's agentic reasoning performance by adding tools to encourage models to revisit. We expect our benchmark and the agentic reasoning framework to aid future studies of understanding and pushing the boundaries of agentic reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of N{=}10 homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across R{=}3 debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density (K in {2,4,9}) and sampling temperature (T in {0.4, 0.7}) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure (K{=}2) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4times more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.

We introduce ARBIGRAPH, a benchmark generator for evaluating whether tool-assisted language agents can retain, update, compose, and discard task-relevant context across extended reasoning workflows. ARBIGRAPH represents each task as a natural-language problem with an executable Python solver, and composes tasks through typed intermediate states, instantiated here as scalar and list values. This design enables controllable task graphs whose length, dependency structure, distractor count, and value type can be varied while preserving exact automatic verification. We instantiate ARBIGRAPH with math, GSM-style word-problems, and Python-tracing task categories, and evaluate a Qwen3.5-27B tool-assisted agent across four topologies. The results show high accuracy on isolated tasks but substantial degradation on more complex dependent tasks: accuracy drops by up to 33.3% on branching chains of dependent math tasks. This shows that ARBIGRAPH exposes failures that are not visible from single-task evaluation alone. Our code, generated datasets, and evaluation results are available at https://github.com/pavelgolikov/ArbiGraph.git