EEG-based brain-computer interfaces support a broad range of applications, yet designing decoding architectures that perform well across diverse tasks remains challenging. We introduce AutoBCI, an agentic framework in which a Designer Agent and a Forecaster Agent support the discovery and selection of EEG decoding architectures across tasks. The Designer Agent performs Pool-Guided Architecture Discovery (PGAD), generating and refining architectures through training and validation across multiple EEG tasks, such as emotion recognition, motor imagery, and sleep staging. The Forecaster Agent performs Performance Estimation from Early Knowledge (PEEK), using architecture code, the training protocol, and early learning curves to predict full-budget validation performance and select promising candidates for continued training. Across 14 EEG datasets spanning motor imagery, emotion recognition, and sleep staging, we evaluate AutoBCI with six LLMs, including Opus 5.5 and GPT 5.6 Sol, and compare the architectures selected by the search procedure against ten baselines: six conventional EEG models and four foundation models. The architecture discovered by AutoBCI with Claude Opus 5.5 achieves 64.16% average test balanced accuracy (bAcc), compared with 63.87% for REVE, the strongest baseline on this metric. Using ten observed epochs, PEEK reduces mean absolute error in predicting average validation bAcc from 2.20 to 1.36 percentage points, a 38.1% reduction relative to the best-observed-score baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/Jiang-Muyun/AutoBCI
Recent advances have enabled unified omni-modal models in understanding audio, vision, and language. However, existing benchmarks, training data, and learning methods largely treat the modalities independently, leaving the capability of audio-visual joint reasoning poorly evaluated and insufficiently elicited. We address this gap with a benchmark, data engine, and learning method. First, we introduce OmniReasoningBench, a benchmark where both audio and visual evidence are indispensable. It comprises 1,150 multiple-choice and open-ended questions across two tasks, reasoning over video and reasoning beyond video. Second, we develop a data engine OmniQA. It automatically constructs evidence-grounded QA pairs that explicitly necessitate audio-visual joint reasoning, together with time-stamped clue chains that guide the annotation of thinking process. Besides our benchmark, this engine produces training data OmniReasoning-SFT-112K and OmniReasoning-RL-19K. Finally, we propose an on-policy self-distillation method Modality-Factored Self-Distillation (MFSD). It evaluates each sampled response under modality-specific clue contexts, disentangling the contributions of individual clues and their cross-modal interactions for token-level credit assignment. With our training data and learning method, our model OmniReasoning-30B-A3B achieves 50.0% on OmniVideoBench and 42.5% on OmniReasoningBench, improving the base model Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Thinking by 12.8 and 9.3 percentage points, respectively. Moreover, it delivers substantial gains on general and long-video benchmarks, including Video-MME-v2. We hope our work offers a solid step for facilitating future research in omni-modal joint reasoning.
Dadi Guo, Jiayu Liu, Zhiyuan Fan Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Zhitao He The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Haoran Li, Yuxin Li The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Yumeng Wang, Yi R. Fung
Large reasoning models ( e.g., R1, o3) have demonstrated remarkable mathematical problem-solving abilities. However, the high reported accuracy of these advanced models on popular datasets and reliance on purely numerical evaluation often mask their true reasoning shortcomings. To address this, we propose leveraging the inherent rigor and methodological complexity of mathematical proofs as a diagnostic tool to expose these hidden failures. Specifically, we introduce the RFMDataset (Reveal Failure Modes), a collection of 200 diverse mathematical proof problems to thoroughly evaluate the performance of advanced models. Our in-depth analysis of their failures uncovers 10 fine-grained error types, which shows fundamental limitations in current large reasoning models: 1) Large reasoning models still have limited capability in generating entirely correct mathematical proofs, with some models solving less than 20% of problems and even making mistakes on fundamental ones; 2) models exhibit a diverse spectrum of reasoning failures, prominently demonstrating the lack of guarantees for the correctness and rigor intermediate reasoning steps; and 3) models show hallucination and incompleteness during the reasoning process. Our findings also reveal that directly prompting models to self-reflect on specific failure modes is insufficient to resolve the current logical dilemmas, necessitating domain knowledge and formal verification.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表