#01Aug 20, 2026
cs.AI
MemTrapBench: Benchmarking Cognitive Traps in LLM Memory Use
Mengru Wang, Haozhe Luo, Zhenqian Xu and 6 more
Memory has become a key component of large language models, enabling them to retain information and learn from long-term interactions. However, existing memory benchmarks mainly evaluate whether information is correctly extracted, stored, and retrieved, while largely overlooking how retrieved memories reshape model reasoning and affect performance on the current task. We identify memory-induced cognitive traps: even faithfully recorded and semantically relevant memories can distort model reasoning or beliefs and degrade current task performance. To systematically evaluate these failure modes, we introduce MemTrapBench, which covers two forms of cognitive traps: Reasoning Fixation and Belief Distortion. Experiments across two model families and five representative memory frameworks show that MemTrapBench is challenging: all evaluated memory strategies underperform the no-memory setting, with even the strongest methods suffering drops of more than 10%. To mitigate these cognitive traps, we propose AdaptiveMem, a simple yet effective inference-time method that instructs LLMs to avoid memory traps. AdaptiveMem mitigates cognitive traps on MemTrapBench while preserving or improving performance on standard memory benchmarks across diverse memory frameworks.
#02Aug 20, 2026
cs.AI
ContractScrub: A benchmark for final review of legal contracts
Yejin Bang, Kirsty Fielding, Brandan Oliver and 3 more
Legal work, with its heavy reliance on processing large amounts of text, is often considered one of the domains most exposed to the use of LLMs. Contract ``scrubbing,'' the final review of transactional agreements for errors and inconsistencies, is a particularly suitable task for automation, because it is routine, painstaking work requiring detailed attention to long documents. Scrubbing also seems to align naturally with the general capabilities expected of frontier LLMs around long-context reasoning, consistency checking, and named entity recognition (NER). Despite the economic value and potential for automation, no formal evaluations of LLMs performing contract scrubbing have been conducted. We introduce ContractScrub, the first benchmark designed to evaluate contract scrubbing capabilities, comprising contracts hand-crafted by experienced lawyers over diverse error categories such as misuse of defined terms, incorrect references, and inconsistent language. Frontier models perform surprisingly poorly with only one model reaching 0.75 macro average recall despite strong performance on seemingly related general benchmarks, demonstrating the practical limits of current models and the importance of narrowly targeted, domain-specific benchmarks for measuring real-world impact.
#03Aug 20, 2026
cs.AI
MidTool: Mid-training Data Synthesis for Agentic Tool Use
Fengqing Jiang, Yite Wang, Boyi Liu and 5 more
Mid-training is increasingly recognized as a critical stage for shaping the capabilities of large language models. Recent work has shown that targeted mid-training can strengthen reasoning-intensive abilities such as math and science, and can also improve agentic capabilities in software-engineering settings. In this work, we study the parallel but less explored agentic capability: general tool use. We present MidTool, an open corpus construction pipeline for agentic tool-use mid-training that combines large-scale web, PDF, and code data with synthesized supervision from real-world tool APIs, MCP skills, and document-grounded workflows. MidTool is designed to teach models how to recognize tool affordances, ground arguments from context, compose tool call workflow, and recover from incomplete information. We mid-train Qwen3-4B-Base and Qwen3-8B-Base on MidTool-Mix, and then apply follow-up post-training with both supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Compared with baselines, MidTool-Mix consistently improves downstream performance under both SFT and RL on BFCL, tau2-Bench, and MCP Universe. These results suggest that general tool use, like other important LLM capabilities, benefits from dedicated mid-training rather than being left entirely to post-training.
#04Aug 20, 2026
cs.AI
DARS: Dual-Level Credit Assignment RL with Structured Reasoning for Instruction-Based Image Editing
Haoxiang Cao, Jiajiong Cao, Xuanpu Zhang and 2 more
Instruction-based image editing uses a planner-renderer pipeline: a vision-language model (VLM) first converts the instruction into an edit plan, and a diffusion model then executes that plan. Training such systems with only final-image rewards is inefficient because a poor edit does not reveal whether additional optimization should place more emphasis on the planner or the renderer, and even planner-dominant cases remain difficult to localize within a free-form reasoning trace. We present DARS, a reinforcement learning framework for dual-level credit assignment in this two-stage setting. Across modules, multi-plan multi-render rollouts estimate between-plan and within-plan reward variability for soft module routing, while rollout mean rewards provide hardness estimates for an adaptive curriculum. Within the planner, a four-field structured reasoning output enables a prefix-gated reward and token-level advantage reweighting, turning outcome-level feedback into localized supervision. Experiments on five benchmarks show that DARS outperforms a Joint~RL baseline with the same backbone, data, reward model, and rollout budget, with the largest gains on reasoning-intensive edits.
#05Aug 20, 2026
cs.AI
Learning When to Think: Adaptive Reasoning for Test-Time Compute Allocation
Gijs Kassenaar, Zhao Yang, Vincent François-Lavet
Reasoning language models trained with reinforcement learning typically operate under a fixed token budget rather than an explicitly adaptive one, which can lead to over-computation on easy problems and insufficient computation on difficult ones. We study whether a model can learn to allocate its own reasoning effort by choosing, as the first token of its response, one of three modes: \textsc{NoThink} (answer as quickly as possible), \textsc{Short} (brief reasoning), or \textsc{Long} (extended reasoning). The choice is learned inside Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with no separate router, through a shaped reward that makes each mode worthwhile at a different response length, together with hard per-mode token caps that keep the modes distinct. On a 1.5B distilled model trained on MATH, the three modes emerge without collapsing to a single choice, and the brief modes end up more accurate than \textsc{Long}, which shows that the router sorts problems by difficulty rather than at random. Averaged over three seeds, the resulting policy stays close to the base model's accuracy on the held-out MATH500 ($0.782$ vs.\ $0.796$) while cutting the mean response length from $4{,}796$ to $2{,}811$ tokens (a $41\%$ reduction). Interestingly, it also transfers to other benchmarks without retraining, with the largest savings where problems are easier, with for instance 76\% token reduction on GSM8K and at higher accuracy than the baselines at similar response length. In short, we build a reasoning model that adaptively chooses how much to reason for each problem.