arXiv:2608. 16852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulatory compliance monitoring in deployed language models is increasingly implemented as a legal and audit control, checking model outputs against written rules spanning data protection, healthcare, financial regulation, and platform policy.
arXiv:2606. 15420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A constitution tells a language model what to value, but little tells us whether it does.
The paper investigates how well the implicit value rankings encoded by frontier AI systems—termed constitutional institutions—meet human demand. By auditing 23 large language model archetypes and surveying 1,649 U.S. participants, the authors find that user demand spans all five values (safety, helpfulness, honesty, autonomy, equity) but the supply is narrow, covering only about 2% of the demand space, with no model prioritizing helpfulness or autonomy. They propose a sparse two‑vertex menu that substantially reduces regret compared to the full set of models and formalize these observations as a budgeted‑pluralism trilemma. whyItMatters":"The study reveals a significant mismatch between the values users prioritize and the values encoded by current AI models, highlighting the need for more diverse and aligned constitutional designs."
The paper proposes a transparent, user‑configurable rule for selecting arguments in deliberative polls, replacing opaque learned rankers. It formalises argument selection over bipolar justification sets, introduces seven civic recommender criteria, and presents a one‑hop reversed endorsement flow rule that meets them. Experiments on 17,000 simulated runs show the rule performs comparably to random on coverage but outperforms other methods on endorsement mass and robustness under adversarial pressure.
The paper audits whether synthetic distractors in RLVR corpora act as shortcuts for learning policies. A classifier using only surface statistics barely outperforms chance, and manual inspection reveals that code distractors are almost identical to correct answers. Experiments with a paraphrase‑matched control show no exploitation advantage for the unmodified data, indicating that the detectable artifact was not used by the policy.
SkillGate is a method that trains agents to select the correct skill from a large slate during an episode by separating credit signals for skill selection and execution. It addresses the problem of selector credit starvation, where traditional outcome-rewarded RL fails to give sufficient credit to the skill-naming tokens, especially in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on five benchmarks show that SkillGate improves a 9B policy’s success rate from 40.8% to 53.2%, reduces exposure to misleading candidates, and requires fewer skill reads.
arXiv:2608. 06422v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements.
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
arXiv:2606. 08919v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person.
The paper investigates a critical flaw in AI coding-agent systems such as Claude Code, Codex CLI, and Cursor, where the action approved by a human is not the same as the action executed by the harness. It introduces the concept of Approval Laundering, categorizing six systematic failure modes—Scope, Argument, Temporal, Tool, Delegation, and Semantic laundering—and demonstrates these failures through controlled experiments. The authors propose an Approval Token mechanism that mitigates some laundering types but leaves others unaffected, highlighting the limitations of current enforcement strategies.
The paper introduces BiasGuard‑D, a system that uses two adversarial language‑model agents from different families to exchange typed claim documents, with a third model quorum voting to adjudicate. A combined referential‑plus‑semantic invariant validates the verdict, and the iterative deliberation layer shifts remediation from stereotypes to hallucinations, improving right‑answer recovery by 49 percentage points on HaluEval QA. All claims, votes, and instructions are stored as typed records, providing an auditable provenance trail for operators under emerging AI regulations.