arXiv:2608. 05235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions.
arXiv:2608.25920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerge...
arXiv:2608. 12654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-running LLM agents act through tools, and a single step can send an email, merge a pull request, or wire a payment.
The paper introduces a self‑healing harness that enforces admission control over language‑model agents’ self‑modifications. The harness runs a Detect‑Notice‑Heal‑Validate loop, allowing agents to propose rule changes that are only granted persistent authority after demonstrating improvement on a failure case without regressing on protected cases. Across 16 benchmark runs, the harness rejected many locally beneficial proposals that caused collateral regressions, while improving task‑completion scores and reliability.
The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
The paper introduces Runtime Assurance Contracts (RAC) as a formal policy framework for high‑risk AI agents, addressing the "assurance‑transition gap" by binding autonomy boundaries, component eligibility, evidence state, transition policy, human‑review capacity, and non‑compensatory gates. RAC allows soft metrics to influence routing while mandating retries, switches, escalations, deferrals, or stops when mandatory gates fail or are unknown, ensuring aggregate performance cannot alone authorize action. The authors define the contract, evidence record, permission rule, and five invariants, and evaluate RAC through deterministic failure‑injection studies, hand‑authored traces, and a prospective synthetic holdout, comparing it to score‑only and restricted protocol baselines.
arXiv:2607. 00269v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair.
ObserverBench is a benchmark framework that evaluates whether internal mechanistic estimators—called observers—are suitable for guiding interventions, control, or safety actions in language models. It separates estimation accuracy from the loss incurred by the chosen action, showing that accurate predictions do not always lead to better decisions. Experiments on GPT‑2‑small, Qwen2.5‑7B, Gemma‑2‑9B‑it, and Qwen3.5‑9B demonstrate that observers trained on action loss can reduce deployment loss, while traditional metrics like AUROC may rank monitors differently from actual performance.
ObserverBench is a benchmark framework that evaluates whether internal mechanistic estimators—called observers—are suitable for guiding interventions, control, or safety actions in language models. It separates estimation accuracy from the loss incurred by the chosen action, demonstrating that accurate average estimates can still lead to poor decisions. Experiments on GPT‑2‑small, Qwen2.5‑7B, Gemma‑2‑9B‑it, and Qwen3.5‑9B show that observers trained on action loss tend to select lower‑loss actions, while traditional metrics like AUROC can rank monitors differently from deployment loss, highlighting the need for task‑specific evaluation.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.
The Agent Error Dataset (AED) presents 50,228 error–diagnosis pairs collected from 9,961 source tasks across 33 environments, 19 harness families, and 23 policy models in text‑based agent systems. A five‑stage Agentic Error‑to‑Training (AET) pipeline generates diagnoses and proposed corrections, verifies them against recorded evidence, and creates separate training views for diagnosis and actor recovery. Experiments show that first‑proposal corrections improve verifier pass rates from 18.4% to 51.1%, and fine‑tuning with full‑diagnosis data raises Qwen3‑8B’s exact‑step agreement from 47.2% to 63.6% on a holdout set.