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. 06503v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable.
By Kai Ruan, Zihe Huang, Ziqi Zhou, Qianshan Wei, Xuan Wang, Hao Sun
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. Reliable deployment therefore requires \emph{step-level confidence estimation}: a calibrated probability that each proposed action is productive, available \emph{before} the action is executed.
Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable. We show that failure is predictable early from the agent's internal representations: lightweight per-round probes on hidden activations anticipate eventual episode failure as early as the first interaction round, where scorers reading only the agent's observable behavior are barely better than chance.
arXiv:2606. 04421v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many current agentic systems and LLM pipelines correct mistakes by optimizing outcome reward.
By Edward Y. Chang
arXiv:2607. 04528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged.
By Haiwen Yi, Xinyuan Song
arXiv:2608. 10441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many pipelines can pay a per-example cost to acquire an auxiliary, model-derived observation -- an LLM's structured reasoning, a slow oracle, an expensive measurement -- and then must decide when the acquired signal is worth using.
By Ying Yuan
arXiv:2606. 30627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conservative offline training is widely advocated as a safe foundation for subsequent online adaptation: if a policy stays close to well-supported behaviour, the argument goes, it is less likely to exploit imperfections in a learned reward model.
By Subramanyam Sahoo, Aman Chadha, Vinija Jain, Divya Chaudhary
arXiv:2606. 15877v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) improves large language models' performance in math and symbolic reasoning.
By Alex Bogdan
arXiv:2607. 25408v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A growing body of 2026 work applies control theory to LLM agents: Lyapunov-certified stability for tool-mediated controllers (Prinos et al.
By Debjyoti Paul
arXiv:2607. 15459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A trained deep reinforcement learning policy is a black box, and we ask whether it can be made explainable by rewriting it as an executable logic program that reproduces its behaviour and that a person can read, a logic engine can run, and an optimizer can edit.
By Eduardo C. Garrido-Merch\'an
arXiv:2607. 02255v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory for a long-horizon LLM agent is a contract about what each future decision is allowed to see.
By Xiangchen Cheng, Yunwei Jiang, Jianwen Sun, Zizhen Li, Chuanhao Li, Xiangcheng Cao, Yihao Liu, Fanrui Zhang, Li Jin, Kaipeng Zhang