探索全球前沿学术脉络

Bridging Information Asymmetry: A Hierarchical Framework for Blind Face Restoration with Reduced Uncertainty

Blind face restoration remains a persistent challenge due to the inherent ill-posedness of reconstructing holistic structures from severely constrained observations. Current generative paradigms, while capable of synthesizing realistic facial details, remain limited by the under-constrained nature of blind restoration, where severely degraded inputs can be mapped to plausible yet identity-inconsistent outputs. To address this issue, we present Pref-Restore, a hierarchical framework for BFR with reduced restoration uncertainty. Our design is organized around three complementary principles: (1) Semantic Information Augmentation, where an auto-regressive semantic branch converts image and text cues into structured tokens that provide a stable high-level anchor; (2) Texture-level Fidelity Alignment, where the diffusion generator is trained under this anchor to recover identity-relevant details; and (3) Fidelity-constrained Preference Optimization, where a face-aware reward refines the diffusion trajectory while controlling the quality–fidelity trade-off. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks show that Pref-Restore achieves state-of-the-art performance, with stronger identity-sensitive fidelity and lower restoration uncertainty across repeated sampling. Systematic ablations further attribute these gains to the proposed hierarchical design, showing the necessity of staged training, the robustness and quality dependence of the text pathway, and the benefit of fidelity-constrained preference optimization.

OdysSim: Building Foundation Models for Human Behavior Simulation

Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation. Yet helpfulness-driven post-training pulls them toward a homogeneous, overly agreeable assistant register, creating a behavioral Sim2Real gap. We present OdysSim, the largest open systematic investigation of behavioral foundation models, i.e., models trained to simulate human behavior at scale. We propose SOUL, a taxonomy of five capability axes (CONV, SS, COG, ROLE, EVAL) that unifies 62 datasets and 23 benchmark tasks under one framework. Specifically, we curate the OdysSim corpus (21.4M interactions, 10B tokens, retrofitted with back-generated social contexts), construct the SOUL-Index benchmark, and develop an end-to-end training recipe combining midtraining, task-specific RL, and expert distillation. The resulting open 8B OSim model ranks first or tied-first on 8 of 23 tasks, outperforming any individual frontier model by this count, with the strongest gains on conversational and social tasks. Its outputs are also more human-like in length, formatting, and word choice, and it transfers zero-shot to out-of-distribution user simulation on $\tau$-bench, nearly matching real users on reaction alignment (93.2 vs. 93.5). We further show that LLM-as-judge RL induces reward-hacking patterns, and that our detectors can mitigate them during post-training. Together, our findings suggest that behavioral foundation models require rethinking the LLM training paradigm. We release all artifacts to support future research.

Let LLMs Judge Each Other: Multi-Agent Peer-Reviewed Reasoning for Medical Question Answering

Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.

Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce

arXiv:2606.12924v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present a modular two-agent simulation framework for evaluating conversational shopping assistant architectures. An independent buyer agent, configured with personas, missions, and patience levels, is paired with an interchangeable responder that integrates with a real e-commerce search API. Holding the buyer constant across experiments enables controlled comparison of responder designs on identical scenarios. Using 2011 conversations across 14 persona buckets, we establish four empirical findings. First, rolling-window memory outperforms intent-extraction memory on all quality metrics while being 35% faster per query. Second, illustrating rapid evidence-driven iteration, a systematic failure analysis of a responder version enables targeted fixes that reduce failure and near-failure rates by 62% across the full dataset. Third, swapping the responder LLM backbone from Gemini~2.5 to Llama~3.3~70B costs 0.16–0.45 points despite identical architecture. Finally, we document systematic philosophical disagreement between frontier LLM judges: Gemini rewards process correctness while Claude demands concrete outcomes, despite using the same evaluation prompt.