When History Lies: Evaluating and Improving Tool Use under Misleading Multi-Turn Histories

Tool-calling agents infer task state from accumulated dialogue and tool traces. In persistent interactions, however, historical traces may remain structurally valid and semantically plausible after they cease to be authoritative for the current request. We show that such history can hijack a policy the model already possesses: on Qwen3-1.7B, pollution flips 32.1% of decisions that are correct under the original trajectory and frequently induces reuse of corrupted entities or interface conventions. We introduce bench, a paired benchmark with synchronized Original, Polluted, and Oracle State views that preserve the system policy, current tools, latest request, and gold next action. Eleven gold-preserving interventions isolate failures in decision state, entity binding, and interface execution across complete calls and non-call decisions. We further propose ours, which transfers an Oracle-conditioned teacher policy to a student observing only polluted history through soft supervision on student-generated prefixes. On Qwen3-1.7B, ours achieves 87.0% Balanced Tool-Use Accuracy, outperforming Gold-SFT (66.3%), Oracle sequence distillation (82.3%), and off-policy token distillation (85.0%). The method scales consistently: an 8B teacher raises the same compact 1.7B student to 91.9%, while an 8B student reaches 93.0%. The resulting policies further transfer to clean histories, unseen functions, independently regenerated evaluation contexts, external tool-use benchmarks, and noisy multi-hop question answering. These results establish history reliability as a distinct tool-use bottleneck and demonstrate reliable-state policy transfer as an effective and scalable solution.

AuthTrace: Diagnosing Evidence Construction in Thematically Dense Single-Author Corpora

Evidence construction--the stage that determines which passages reach the language model before generation begins--is evaluated paradigm by paradigm, leaving practitioners with no principled way to diagnose which organization strategy fails, where, or why. We introduce AuthTrace, a diagnostic benchmark built on thematically dense single-author corpora where near-miss distractors share style, topic, and vocabulary with the required evidence. AuthTrace provides explicit quoted evidence, exact fan-in annotation, and a unified pack-level protocol measuring evidence recall, evidence precision, and answer correctness. A fan-in gradient--the number of source documents required to support the answer--serves as the primary diagnostic axis, enabling controlled comparison across retrieval, memory, graph, and structured-evidence paradigms. Evaluating eight systems across two QA models, we find that evidence recall is the strongest observed predictor of answer correctness under the primary reader-judge pair (r = 0.96); most failures stem from missing evidence rather than answer synthesis. Fan-in further exposes paradigm-specific collapse patterns: flat retrieval degrades 2-3x faster than thematically organized evidence construction. These results show fan-in decomposition to be a reusable diagnostic lens for identifying where evidence-construction systems fail and which paradigm best serves a given workload.

Retrieval as Reasoning: Self-Evolving Agent-Native Retrieval via LLM-Wiki

LLM agents require retrieval to behave less like one-shot context fetching and more like reasoning: searching, reading, traversing, and deciding when evidence is sufficient. Yet current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems organize external knowledge as flat chunks retrieved by embedding similarity, exposing a retrieval-as-lookup interface ill-suited to iterative reasoning agents. We propose LLM-Wiki, an agent-native retrieval system that operationalizes the Retrieval-as-Reasoning paradigm by treating external knowledge as a compilable, composable, and self-evolving structure rather than a static retrieval index. LLM-Wiki compiles documents into structured Wiki pages with bidirectional links, exposes search, read, and link-following operations through standard tool-calling interfaces, and introduces an Error Book for persistent structural and semantic self-correction. LLM-Wiki achieves state-of-the-art results on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, and 2WikiMultiHopQA, outperforming HippoRAG 2, LightRAG, and GraphRAG by 2.0-8.1 F1 points. On AuthTrace, LLM-Wiki achieves the best overall accuracy, with especially strong gains on multi-document structured queries, confirming that compilation-based retrieval generalizes beyond chain-style multi-hop reasoning.

RxEval: A Prescription-Level Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Medication Recommendation

Inpatient medication recommendation requires clinicians to repeatedly select specific medications, doses, and routes as a patient's condition evolves. Existing benchmarks formulate this task as admission-level prediction over coarse drug codes with multi-hot diagnostic and procedure code inputs, failing to capture the per-timepoint, information-rich nature of real prescribing. We propose RxEval, a prescription-level benchmark that evaluates LLM prescribing capability by multiple-choice questions: each question presents a detailed patient profile and time-ordered clinical trajectory, requiring selection of specific medication-dose-route triples from real prescriptions and patient-specific distractors generated via reasoning-chain perturbation. RxEval comprises 1,547 questions spanning 584 patients, 18 diagnostic categories, and 969 unique medications. Evaluation of 16 LLMs shows that RxEval is both challenging and discriminative: F1 ranges from 45.18 to 77.10 across models, and the best Exact Match is only 46.10%. Error analysis reveals that even frontier models may overlook stated patient information and fail to derive clinical conclusions.