Wenqing Jing

Ming Zhang, Jiabao Zhuang, Wenqing Jing et al.

Deep Research Agents increasingly automate survey generation, yet whether they match human experts at retrieving essential papers and organizing them into expert-like taxonomies remains unclear. Existing benchmarks emphasize writing quality or citation correctness, while standard clustering metrics ignore hierarchical structure. We introduce TaxoBench, a benchmark of 72 highly-cited LLM surveys with expert-authored taxonomy trees and 3,815 papers mapped to paper categories. TaxoBench evaluates (1) retrieval via Recall/Precision/F1, and (2) organization at a leaf level (paper-to-category assignment) and a hierarchy level via novel metrics, namely Unordered Semantic Tree Edit Distance US-TED/US-NTED and Semantic Path Similarity Sem-Path. Two modes are supported: Deep Research (topic-only, end-to-end) and Bottom-Up (expert paper set provided, organization-only). To distinguish disagreement with a single expert reference from genuine model failure, we explicitly partition findings into capability-based (reference-free) and alignment-based (reference-dependent). Evaluating 7 Deep Research Agents and 12 frontier LLMs reveals a dual bottleneck: capability-side, the best agent retrieves only 20.92% of expert-cited papers, and 1,000 model taxonomies show 75.9% sibling overlap, 51.2% MECE violations, and 83.4% structural imbalance, all detectable without any reference; alignment-side, all 12 LLMs converge to Sem-Path 28--29%, well below 47--58% achieved by three independent human-annotator groups on the same paper sets. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench

Jiazheng Zhang, Ziche Fu, Zhiheng Xi et al.

Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS). Yet, they face significant challenges in complex domains. Error propagation from incorrect intermediate reasoning can lead to false positives for seemingly plausible solutions, while lacking external grounding makes verifiers unreliable on computation or knowledge-intensive tasks. To address these challenges, we propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process. We introduce complementary forward and backward agents: one traces solutions from premises to conclusions, while the other re-checks conclusions against their underlying premises. This bidirectional process enables a comprehensive, reliable, and interpretable assessment of solutions. To facilitate practical deployment, we propose AgentV-RL. Through proactive exploration and reinforcement learning, the verifier autonomously interleaves tool-use with internal reasoning. Extensive experiments show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS. Notably, our 4B variant surpasses state-of-the-art ORMs by 25.2%, positioning it as a promising paradigm for agentic reward modeling.

Jiazheng Zhang, Wenqing Jing, Zizhuo Zhang et al.

Reward models (RMs) play a pivotal role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values. However, noisy preferences in human feedback can lead to reward misgeneralization - a phenomenon where reward models learn spurious correlations or overfit to noisy preferences, which poses important challenges to the generalization of RMs. This paper systematically analyzes the characteristics of preference pairs and aims to identify how noisy preferences differ from human-aligned preferences in reward modeling. Our analysis reveals that noisy preferences are difficult for RMs to fit, as they cause sharp training fluctuations and irregular gradient updates. These distinctive dynamics suggest the feasibility of identifying and excluding such noisy preferences. Empirical studies demonstrate that policy LLM optimized with a reward model trained on the full preference dataset, which includes substantial noise, performs worse than the one trained on a subset of exclusively high quality preferences. To address this challenge, we propose an online Collaborative Reward Modeling (CRM) framework to achieve robust preference learning through peer review and curriculum learning. In particular, CRM maintains two RMs that collaboratively filter potential noisy preferences by peer-reviewing each other's data selections. Curriculum learning synchronizes the capabilities of two models, mitigating excessive disparities to promote the utility of peer review. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CRM significantly enhances RM generalization, with up to 9.94 points improvement on RewardBench under an extreme 40\% noise. Moreover, CRM can seamlessly extend to implicit-reward alignment methods, offering a robust and versatile alignment strategy.

Ming Zhang, Kexin Tan, Yueyuan Huang et al.

Evaluating novelty is critical yet challenging in peer review, as reviewers must assess submissions against a vast, rapidly evolving literature. This report presents OpenNovelty, an LLM-powered agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis. The system operates through four phases: (1) extracting the core task and contribution claims to generate retrieval queries; (2) retrieving relevant prior work based on extracted queries via semantic search engine; (3) constructing a hierarchical taxonomy of core-task-related work and performing contribution-level full-text comparisons against each contribution; and (4) synthesizing all analyses into a structured novelty report with explicit citations and evidence snippets. Unlike naive LLM-based approaches, \textsc{OpenNovelty} grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments. We deploy our system on 500+ ICLR 2026 submissions with all reports publicly available on our website, and preliminary analysis suggests it can identify relevant prior work, including closely related papers that authors may overlook. OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.