让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Large language models have made rapid progress in agentic reasoning and tool use, raising expectations for agents that can take over realistic productivity work from humans. However, current agents still struggle to finish such tasks, where success requires following long-horizon professional workflows, understanding heterogeneous file contexts, and producing usable deliverables under fine-grained requirements. A key bottleneck is the lack of scalable post-training data that reflects real work intent, authentic file environments, and deliverable-level evaluation. To close this gap, we introduce Agent-R$^2$, a $\textbf{r}$eal-source data synthesis framework that scales training data for $\textbf{r}$ealistic productivity work. Instead of relying on manually specified workflows or LLM-generated files, Agent-R$^2$ grounds synthesis throughout the pipeline in real occupational seeds, corpus-derived workflow evidence, and authentic web-sourced files. From 10k web-corpus candidates, Agent-R$^2$ distills 4k task instances that pair real multi-format attachments with fine-grained, deliverable-level rubrics. On this data, we train Agent-R$^2$-4B via supervised fine-tuning and rubric-based reinforcement learning, improving both end-to-end productivity performance and file-grounded reasoning. Trained on only 4k instances, Agent-R$^2$-4B surpasses Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 on both GDPval (51.0$\%$ vs. 48.0$\%$) and OfficeQA (14.8$\%$ vs. 13.8$\%$). Further analysis shows that Agent-R$^2$ mitigates shortcut behavior, where agents produce superficially plausible deliverables before sufficiently grounding, constructing, or verifying them, while promoting sustained exploration.

Legal Question Answering (QA) over statutory texts is a challenging task in Natural Language Processing (NLP), especially in low-resource settings with complex legal systems. It requires answers that are precise and grounded in the law. However, to the best of current knowledge, no existing extractive QA benchmark provides exact answer spans from statutory texts across all seven Indian Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Acts. This paper presents IndicIPR-QA1, an extractive QA benchmark for Indian IPR laws. The proposed dataset contains 4,462 QA pairs from 1,116 statutory contexts across seven Acts. Questions and answers are generated using GPT-4o and validated through nine automatic quality checks, single and multi-model LLM evaluations, and a 200-pair human audit. Section-level partitioning prevents source-context overlap across the training, validation, and test sets. Further analysis examines answer span length, lexical overlap, and multi-clause structure across the corpus and individual Acts. BM25 achieves a token-level F1 score of 20.21, while fine-tuned InLegalBERT reaches 85.02 under a unified sliding-window inference protocol. The large performance gap between BM25 (20.21 F1) and InLegalBERT (85.02 F1) shows that simple word matching is not enough to answer these legal questions. Performance also varies across the seven Acts, indicating substantial differences in answer-extraction performance.

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence score predicted with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them submitted by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence scores predicted for those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.