The paper investigates the problem of sharing a single critic across multiple parallel environments in reinforcement learning. It shows that when environments assign different expected returns to the same state, a shared critic must reconcile conflicting value targets, which can distort advantage estimates and misguide policy updates. The authors propose a simple fix—providing the critic with the environment index—demonstrating through bandit models and experiments on CartPole, MuJoCo, BipedalWalker, and 16 Procgen games that this conditional critic stabilizes learning and boosts returns, achieving a 40.8% improvement in aggregate normalized return on unseen levels.
By Zhenya Liu, Yang Meng, Zhuokai Zhao, Xuefeng Liu, Yuxin Chen
arXiv:2606. 07552v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models exhibit a risk-averse "turtle" bias as strategic agents.
By Augustin Chan
arXiv:2606. 14200v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Open platforms increasingly route tasks among heterogeneous LLM agents--differing in base model, scaffold, and tool stack--whose competence varies sharply by skill: an agent excellent at one skill may be useless at another.
By Yihan Xia, Taotao Wang
arXiv:2606. 07552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models exhibit innate behavioral tendencies when deployed as strategic agents -- notably a risk-averse "turtle" bias toward defensive play.
By Augustin Chan
arXiv:2504. 14636v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AlphaZero is normally evaluated as one agent: a policy-value network fused with Monte Carlo tree search.
By Ruitong Li, Binjie Guo, Aisheng Mo, Guowei Su, Han Wang, Jie Li, Ru Zhang
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
By Chenyu Zhou
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
By Jiapeng Li
arXiv:2607. 11953v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Does a reinforcement-learning agent that earns high reward actually learn its task's hidden state, or only a shortcut that correlates with reward?
By James E. Allchin
arXiv:2606. 07889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents sometimes acknowledge a problem in their own reasoning and then proceed anyway.
By Marut Pandya, Kasey Zhang, Baiqing Lyu
The paper investigates selective on‑policy distillation, where a student model is trained only on token positions chosen by a selector. It demonstrates that the commonly used shared learning rate is not neutral: performance varies significantly with the learning rate for different selectors, leading to inconsistent comparisons. The authors attribute this selector‑rate entanglement to the selection process itself and recommend reporting the full arm‑by‑rate matrix for fair evaluation.
By Chencheng Zhu
arXiv:2607. 17136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead.
By Barada Sahu (Cabal AI), Shivesh Pandey (Para AI)
arXiv:2607. 10814v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating LLM agents in hidden-information multi-agent settings is hard: final outcomes are high-variance and rarely reveal why an agent decided as it did.
By Yuan Gao, Jiangyi Yang, Yao Zhao, Yichi Zhang