The study examines a two‑agent résumé screening process where both employer‑side and candidate‑side agents exchange evidence before deciding who advances, contrasting it with the traditional one‑call automated screening. Using GPT‑5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 on 600 constructed résumé‑job pairs, the two‑agent method increased the proportion of applications advanced (up to 39.3% for GPT‑5.5) and raised pass rates for borderline cases from 4.5% to 26.2% (GPT‑5.5) and 6.5% to 16.1% (Opus 4.7). The results show that the screening procedure itself, rather than just the underlying model, determines which candidates reach human review and how consistently that access recurs.
arXiv:2608. 06949v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias.
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.
arXiv:2606. 16723v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly take actions (screening applicants, recommending credit, triaging patients), yet fairness for LLMs is still measured by grading answers.
arXiv:2609.39026v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep Research agents synthesize evidence into cited reports, yet a well-cited report can still reach a misleading conclusion. Citation correctness chec...
arXiv:2606. 11522v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autoresearch agents now propose, evaluate, and select scientific candidates against a metric, and that metric is usually an aggregate reduced over a heterogeneous space of regions, slices, or cohorts.
The paper evaluates hard‑gate candidacy for validators in a deployed generative‑agent system by measuring how well each validator’s firing separates successful from failed builds. Across 13 validators and thousands of builds, only a few checks show statistically significant separation, while many fail to distinguish or never fire. The study highlights that skipped checks are recorded as passes, limiting detectable failure rates and underscoring the need for clearer evaluation records.
arXiv:2608. 03744v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace.
arXiv:2609.26086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An agentic retrieval system issues a sequence of search queries and must decide, at each step, whether the evidence collected so far is enough to stop....
CITECHOICE is a causal audit that examines how the presentation of documents in an agentic search engine redistributes citation credit. Using 129 everyday‑query transcripts, the study compares structured versus prose renderings of the same source while keeping all other transcript elements fixed. The results show that structured rendering increases the target’s citation count by about half a citation per answer without adding total citations or diminishing competitors’ credit, while also revealing that rank position has a larger effect on citation rates than presentation order alone.
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.
arXiv:2609.27051v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents now run the whole of quantitative factor research: they propose investment factors, backtest them, select the survivors and retir...
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.