The paper argues that accuracy is an inadequate metric for certifying a coordinator’s theory‑of‑mind in multi‑agent systems, because the required accuracy depends on deployment‑specific costs and errors are often dependent. Experiments on task assignment, Level‑Based Foraging, Hanabi, and human judgments show that accuracy can both approve harmful language‑model deployments and reject beneficial ones. The authors propose a Blind‑Spot Gate that evaluates error costs, pairwise interactions, and dependence without deployment, achieving better safety outcomes than accuracy alone.
By Will Beaumaster, Paul Schrater
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
By Mengdie Flora Wang, Haochen Xie, Guanghui Wang, Devin Zhang, Jae Oh Woo
The paper audits a developer‑accessible on‑device language model, revealing that it can confidently produce incorrect answers while refusing benign prompts, a phenomenon termed task‑asymmetric miscalibration. The model’s confident outputs are surface‑indistinguishable, with classifiers based on user‑visible features failing to separate correct from wrong responses. The authors propose a model‑agnostic audit protocol, a surface‑indistinguishability test, and a black‑box consistency wrapper that improves reliability without requiring model access.
By Shashwat Pandey, Satwik Pandey, Suresh Raghu
The study investigates how humans and AI collaborate on a puzzle task, focusing on referential uncertainty—when a description could refer to multiple objects. It finds that eliciting a belief distribution over candidate pieces yields better calibration and discrimination than raw action probabilities, and that precise descriptions or well‑targeted hedges significantly reduce the acceptance of wrong placements. However, the AI rarely externalizes uncertainty, and poorly targeted hedges can be counterproductive.
By Christian Poelitz, Finale Doshi-Velez, Si\^an Lindley
arXiv:2607. 17044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it.
By Arunabh Dastidar (for the Leni Team)
Large language model (LLM) agents now fix software, operate computers and serve customers, but their harnesses, the programs that run them, call a large LLM at every step, which makes long tasks slow...
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.
By Jianru Shen
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
The paper treats human interventions during LLM agent failures as labels that pinpoint the internal computation that went wrong, rather than merely training data. In a controlled environment, the authors analyze one failure type—over‑asking a clarifying question when the request is already clear—using rule‑based overseer labels validated by blind human judgment. They find that the decision to ask versus act can be causally localized across several models, that over‑asking exhibits distinct mechanistic signatures, and that steering or weight consolidation can mitigate the issue, though outcomes vary by model family.
By Cesare Zavattari, Alessandro Tommasi, Giuseppe Prencipe
arXiv:2606. 00005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error.
By VD Doske
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.
By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar
JevAgentHarness is a new framework that benchmarks, deploys, and trains decision models to share control with large language models (LLMs) in agentic tasks. It introduces AgentDecisionBench to evaluate decision models from isolated questions to full agent control, revealing that accurate isolated decisions still miss many tasks and that naïve delegation can reduce success. By fitting confidence thresholds per choice and training a 4B decision model on states after agent mistakes, JevAgentHarness achieves high task success while cutting cost and speeding up execution, with results and resources made publicly available.
By Kunlun Zhu, Tao Feng, Xu Han, Heng Wang, Ling Yang, Xiangru Tang, Jiaxuan You, Heng Ji