arXiv:2607. 28814v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In Motivational Interviewing (MI), a client's sustain talk (arguments for the status quo) calls for the counselor to roll with resistance, a move that can fail in two opposite ways: capitulation (abandoning the change agenda to preserve rapport) or confrontation (arguing or directing, overriding the client's autonomy).
arXiv:2605.11467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reasoning models post-hoc rationalize answers they have already committed to internally, producing chains of *reasoning theater*: deliberativ...
The paper demonstrates that a preference‑optimization objective can learn to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources by installing a prior‑dependent reliability switch. By training on data where a source’s stated reliability is paired with its answer, the model learns to flip its response only when the stated reliability exceeds a threshold that grows with the model’s prior. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct and Llama‑3.1‑8B show that this switch generalizes to unseen reliability values and follows stated reliability over role prestige, whereas supervised imitation fails to learn it.
arXiv:2607. 16451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise.
RISED introduces a framework that uses rubric-based textual feedback to improve training of a single large language model (LLM) agent across multiple interactive environments. By having an LLM judge tag rollouts with a shared rubric vocabulary, the system guides both online data selection and policy supervision, enabling richer cross‑environment relationships and within‑group reward contrast. Experiments show that RISED achieves the highest mean pass rate and ranks first or second in every individual environment, with rubric analysis revealing behavioural changes behind these gains.
arXiv:2607. 18966v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models trained with reinforcement learning may learn to optimize the grader's judgment rather than the intended objective.
The study examines how two small instruction‑tuned language models, Qwen2.5‑1.5B and Llama‑3.2‑1B, respond to user pushback on TriviaQA. When initially correct, the models flip to a wrong answer in about 42–43% of cases, with the effectiveness of different pushback styles varying by model. Attempts to decode capitulation from the pre‑response residual stream fail under a rigorous validation protocol, revealing overfitting and a measurement hazard that underestimates capitulation by 18–24 percentage points.
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
arXiv:2606. 07834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly turn verdicts into system commitments.
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.
The paper introduces a boundary-aware self‑distillation framework for controlled large language model safety refusal, addressing the need for different refusal boundaries within the same topic. It combines controlled topic generation, coverage repair, in‑distribution compensation data, and harmful‑benign pairs to train and evaluate refusal behavior. Experiments on Qwen3‑8B show that escalating retries dramatically improve target‑domain refusal rates while reducing unsafe responses, though they also increase over‑refusal, highlighting the trade‑off between safety and usability.
arXiv:2606. 30383v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A rapidly growing class of LLM agents is multi-party: the agent acts for a principal (who briefs it, sends follow-ups, and receives results) while also conversing in a separate channel with a counterparty whose interests may diverge (negotiating with a vendor, screening inbound requests, or mediating between employees).
arXiv:2605. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased.