The paper investigates whether an elicitation agent (EA) can improve the quality of Lean specifications generated by large language models (LLMs) through interactive clarification. The EA decomposes a task, identifies unresolved decisions, asks a limited number of clarification questions, and refines the natural‑language specification before an LLM formalizer translates it into Lean. Experiments on 189 Verina Lean 4 tasks show that cross‑model pipelines (e.g., Sonnet 4.6 → GPT‑5.6) can achieve up to a 65.6 % strict pass@1 rate, whereas same‑model pipelines do not consistently improve accuracy.
By Mowafak Allaham, Aditya Vempaty, Ashish Jagmohan, Prasenjit Dey, Ravi Kokku
arXiv:2607. 11696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-refinement often fails to strengthen few-shot inductive reasoning in large language models.
By Huan Zhu
arXiv:2608. 08514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models).
By Minhan Cho, Jimin Kweon
arXiv:2609.07944v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Existing causal-inference benchmarks for LLMs mostly score method descriptions or whether generated code runs, not whether the executed workflow recove...
By Yonghong Zhang, Ricardo Correia, Isabel M. Parra, Yong Xie
arXiv:2610.07817v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Organizations automating operational processes need more than a correct outcome: they need to predict how a process will run, know which one actually...
By Hans Schabert, Christoph Peters
arXiv:2607. 19257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade.
By Netanel Eliav
Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models.
The paper introduces Thinking‑in‑Bets, a training‑free technique where a language‑model agent records its key claims, supporting checks, and confidence before receiving user feedback. By consulting this private claim checklist when challenged, the agent preserves verified work and focuses on uncertain or newly contested parts, reducing sycophantic revisions. Experiments on five Gemini models across eight benchmarks show that pre‑reply claim records nearly eliminate false reversals in patch review, protect report drafts from mistaken pushback, and lower unnecessary edits in multi‑turn coding while improving accuracy and confidence in non‑interactive tasks.
By Nghi D. Q. Bui
Draft-OPD introduces an on‑policy distillation method for speculative draft models, addressing the mismatch between supervised fine‑tuning and inference by letting the target model supervise the drafter on draft‑induced states. The approach uses target‑assisted rollouts for stable continuations and replays drafting from error positions exposed during verification, enabling the drafter to learn from both accepted and rejected proposals. Experiments demonstrate that Draft‑OPD achieves more than five‑fold lossless acceleration across diverse tasks, outperforming prior draft models such as EAGLE‑3 and DFlash by 23 % and 13 % respectively.
By Haodi Lei, Yafu Li, Haoran Zhang, Shunkai Zhang, Qianjia Cheng, Xiaoye Qu, Ganqu Cui, Bowen Zhou, Ning Ding, Yun Luo, Yu Cheng
arXiv:2608. 03291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process.
By Shashwat Sourav, Aishwarya Balwani
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song
ChipMEM introduces a verification‑grounded memory layer for electronic design automation agents that combines cross‑task procedural memory with within‑trajectory statistical guidance. The procedural component stores a skill only after it passes synthesis, simulation, or formal checks, while a Bayesian component ranks recovery strategies based on tool‑call outcomes. Experiments on RTLRewriter‑Bench and CVDP tasks show that ChipMEM improves equivalence‑passing outputs and area metrics compared to agents without memory.
By Abdulrahman AlRabah, Joshua Mabry, Dilek Hakkani-T\"ur, Abdussalam Alawini, Hamid Shojaei, Kartik Hegde, Sandesh Adhikary