Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.28578

Sage-A1.5: From Long-Horizon Execution to Scientific Exploration with Capability Composition

Wenjie Lou·Tianshuo Peng·Shiyang Feng·Shengji Tang·Runmin Ma·Ruizhe Chen·Jinxin Shi·Haoyang Peng·Fangchen Yu·Zhijie Zhong·Yuhao Zhou·Yue Fan·Yixin Chen·Yiming Wu·Yiheng Wang·Yigeng Jiang·Yichen Jiang·Yi Xie·Xu Guo·Xiaohan He·Tao Hu·Songtao Huang·Siyu Zhou·Shuaiyu Zhang·Shangheng Du·Qinglong Cao·Kun Li·Jingqi Ye·Hongbin Zhou·Guohang Yan·Zongsheng Cao·Ziyi Wang·Zhuo Liu·Zhiyin Yu·Zhiwang Zhou·Zelin Tan·Yuqing Zhu·Yaoze Zhang·Yang Chen·Xuming He·Xiuliang Liang·Xingjian Guo·Xiang Zhuang·Weiping Shen·Weida Wang·Tianyuan Zhou·Tianlin Ye·Tengyuan Fan·Siyu Yan·Shuo Li·Shuchen Pu·Shengyuan Xu·Shao Zhang·Ran Wei·Qinyuan Qin·Qingyu Yang·Nianchen Deng·Meng Dai·Kuikun Liu·Kaitao Chen·Juncheng Xiao·Jiangning Liu·Jianbiao Mei·Jia Yu·Haonan He·Hangfan Zhang·Cheng Yang·Chen Zhang·Bihao Zhan·Benteng Cheng·Yuqiang Li·Yihao Liu·Yang Yang·Xujun Fu·Xiaosong Wang·Xiangyu Yue·Wenwei Zhang·Shuyue Hu·Pinlong Cai·Mianxin Liu·Lei Bai·Jie Zhou·Jie Hou·Jiamin Wu·Hui Wang·Haijun Li·Guangyu Wang·Dongzhan Zhou·Chunfeng Song·Chao Yang·Biqing Qi·Xing Xie·Dahua Lin·Bowen Zhou·Xiangchao Yan·Wenlong Zhang·Shufei Zhang·Peng Ye·Bo Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this report, we introduce Sage-A1.5, a 35B Mixture-of-Experts agentic model that builds on A1 to advance long-horizon problem solving through adaptive capability composition. Compared with A1, Sage-A1.5 learns not only to solve individual tasks, but also to organize work and revise its approach during execution. Sage-A1.5 highlights three improvements: agentic orchestration, verification, and open scientific discovery. First, agentic orchestration extends single-agent execution through task delegation and parallel collaboration among subagents with isolated contexts, enabling complex tasks to be decomposed and addressed concurrently and supporting efficient execution while reducing interference across concurrent subagents. Second, agentic verification strengthens long-horizon reliability through progress checking, evidence validation, and reflective strategy revision, allowing the agent to recognize unproductive search paths and pursue alternative approaches. Third, open scientific discovery extends agentic capabilities beyond answering predefined questions to conducting exploratory research, connecting scientific inquiry with interactive analysis and inspectable research artifacts. We showcase these capabilities through complicated agentic tasks and multidisciplinary scientific applications. Besides, we hope Sage-A1.5 provides the community with an accessible foundation for open scientific discovery, offering a practical path from long-horizon task execution to collaborative, verifiable, and inspectable scientific exploration.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wenjie Lou, Tianshuo Peng, Shiyang Feng, Shengji Tang, Runmin Ma, Ruizhe Chen, Jinxin Shi, Haoyang Peng, Fangchen Yu, Zhijie Zhong, Yuhao Zhou, Yue Fan, Yixin Chen, Yiming Wu, Yiheng Wang, Yigeng Jiang, Yichen Jiang, Yi Xie, Xu Guo, Xiaohan He, Tao Hu, Songtao Huang, Siyu Zhou, Shuaiyu Zhang, Shangheng Du, Qinglong Cao, Kun Li, Jingqi Ye, Hongbin Zhou, Guohang Yan, Zongsheng Cao, Ziyi Wang, Zhuo Liu, Zhiyin Yu, Zhiwang Zhou, Zelin Tan, Yuqing Zhu, Yaoze Zhang, Yang Chen, Xuming He, Xiuliang Liang, Xingjian Guo, Xiang Zhuang, Weiping Shen, Weida Wang, Tianyuan Zhou, Tianlin Ye, Tengyuan Fan, Siyu Yan, Shuo Li, Shuchen Pu, Shengyuan Xu, Shao Zhang, Ran Wei, Qinyuan Qin, Qingyu Yang, Nianchen Deng, Meng Dai, Kuikun Liu, Kaitao Chen, Juncheng Xiao, Jiangning Liu, Jianbiao Mei, Jia Yu, Haonan He, Hangfan Zhang, Cheng Yang, Chen Zhang, Bihao Zhan, Benteng Cheng, Yuqiang Li, Yihao Liu, Yang Yang, Xujun Fu, Xiaosong Wang, Xiangyu Yue, Wenwei Zhang, Shuyue Hu, Pinlong Cai, Mianxin Liu, Lei Bai, Jie Zhou, Jie Hou, Jiamin Wu, Hui Wang, Haijun Li, Guangyu Wang, Dongzhan Zhou, Chunfeng Song, Chao Yang, Biqing Qi, Xing Xie, Dahua Lin, Bowen Zhou, Xiangchao Yan, Wenlong Zhang, Shufei Zhang, Peng Ye, Bo Zhang. 2026-10-20. Sage-A1.5: From Long-Horizon Execution to Scientific Exploration with Capability Composition. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28578

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

Developing visual perception models for active agents and sensorimotor control are cumbersome to be done in the physical world, as existing algorithms are too slow to efficiently learn in real-time and robots are fragile and costly. This has given rise to learning-in-simulation which consequently casts a question on whether the results transfer to real-world. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of developing real-world perception for active agents, propose Gibson Virtual Environment for this purpose, and showcase sample perceptual tasks learned therein. Gibson is based on virtualizing real spaces, rather than using artificially designed ones, and currently includes over 1400 floor spaces from 572 full buildings. The main characteristics of Gibson are: I. being from the real-world and reflecting its semantic complexity, II. having an internal synthesis mechanism, "Goggles", enabling deploying the trained models in real-world without needing further domain adaptation, III. embodiment of agents and making them subject to constraints of physics and space.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

GenoMAS: Guided Multi-Agent Programming for Scientific Discovery from Genomic Data

Gene expression analysis holds the key to many biomedical discoveries, yet extracting insights from raw transcriptomic data remains challenging due to the complexity of multiple large, semi-structured files and the need for extensive domain expertise. Current approaches either rely on inflexible workflows that fail in edge cases or fully autonomous agents that lack the precision required for rigorous scientific inquiry. GenoMAS addresses this by presenting a team of LLM-based agents that integrates structured workflows with autonomous adaptability, orchestrating diverse specialized agents through typed message-passing protocols. At its core lies a guided-planning framework where programming agents decompose task guidelines into Action Units and dynamically choose to advance, revise, bypass, or backtrack, maintaining logical coherence while adapting to the idiosyncrasies of genomic data. On the GenoTEX benchmark, GenoMAS achieves 89.13% CSC for data preprocessing and 60.48% $F_1$ for identifying trait-associated genes, surpassing prior art by 10.61% and 16.85%. Beyond transcriptomics, it outperforms strong agent baselines on ScienceAgentBench and DiscoveryBench, two independent bioinformatics benchmarks. Qualitative analysis shows that GenoMAS identifies gene-phenotype associations that are biologically plausible and corroborated by the literature.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective

AI planning provides agents the ability to act autonomously towards achieving a goal in a given environment. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the prospect of using unstructured input for planning, making LLMs in planning an active area of research, especially for supporting autonomous agents. However, LLMs remain unreliable as long-horizon planners, since some of the plans they produce contain mistaken or hallucinated actions; executing such plans could lead to unexpected and harmful outcomes. Existing benchmarks for LLMs in planning primarily rely on binary evaluation metrics, providing limited insight into the quality of plans that do not achieve the goal, and how far those are from becoming valid. In this paper, we frame the evaluation of LLMs in planning as a natural language processing (NLP) task, as LLMs are themselves NLP models. We propose a pipeline comprising three NLP-based steps that assess plan quality from complementary perspectives, followed by a symbolic planning step to achieve a valid plan, to provide a finer-grained understanding of the quality of invalid plans. In our experiments, we find no clear evidence of logical derivation or state-tracking during LLM plan generation -- on average, for all non-empty plans, only 3.55 actions per plan are executable, despite symbolically-generated optimal plans having an average length of 9.47 actions, which suggests that LLMs are still far from the reliability of symbolic planners. Our suite of metrics is further used to investigate patterns in LLM plan generation over time, and can provide a useful metric for assessing the quality of individual invalid plans.

cs.AI↗