arXiv:2607. 12397v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents act in external environments where each action changes the state that later decisions condition on, and where a single wrong step can waste interaction budget or trigger irreversible side effects long before the final failure is observed.
By Yaopei Zeng, Congchao Wang, JianHang Chen, Nan Wang, Yurui Chang, Lu Lin
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
arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
By Ning Liu
arXiv:2607. 17765v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce WC2026-Agents, a benchmark and dataset for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as autonomous forecasting agents on real, future events.
By Jiacheng Ding, Cong Guo, Jason Xu
arXiv:2608. 11560v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personalizing marketing messages with contextual multi-armed bandits (CMABs) drives real business value, yet the objective that ultimately matters - a downstream conversion - is observed only weeks later, too late to drive online learning.
By Sang Su Lee, Vineeth Loganathan, Shishir Dash, Vijay Raghavan
arXiv:2602. 18037v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are two key steps in the post-training of modern Language Models (LMs).
By Johannes Ackermann, Michael Noukhovitch, Takashi Ishida, Masashi Sugiyama
arXiv:2608. 17776v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We demonstrate that RL finetuning an LLM using debate, a two-player adversarial game between a generator and a critic adjudicated by a weaker LLM judge, reduces reward hacking compared to a reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) baseline.
By Zachary Kenton, Lili Janzer, Rory Greig, Tian Huey Teh, Kirill Tyshchuk, Jonah Brown-Cohen, Harri Edwards, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Noah Y. Siegel, Natasha Jaques, Rohin Shah
arXiv:2607. 07976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) has achieved remarkable success in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
By Xiuyi Lou, Zicheng Xu, Yu-Neng Chuang, Hoang Anh Duy Le, Zhaozhuo Xu, Guanchu Wang, Vladimir Braverman
arXiv:2306. 02704v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We introduce \emph{Calibrated Stackelberg Games (CSGs)}, a generalization of the standard Stackelberg Games (SGs) framework.
By Nika Haghtalab, Chara Podimata, Kunhe Yang
arXiv:2603. 19551v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We develop horizon-aware anytime-valid tests and confidence sequences for bounded means under a strict deadline $N$.
By Ege Onur Taga, Samet Oymak, Shubhanshu Shekhar
arXiv:2606. 11445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Trust in an AI system is often anchored by explanations of how it works, which one then uses to forecast its behavior on new inputs.
By Mosh Levy, Yoav Goldberg, Asa Cooper Stickland
arXiv:2401. 14483v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In the current practices of machine learning, the evaluation of forecasts has become a cornerstone of scientific progress.
By Rabanus Derr, Robert C. Williamson