arXiv AI

RetryBench: Separating Retry Permission from Recovery Outcomes in GPT Tool Use

arXiv AI
Oct 1

NAQD Env: A benchmark for selective withdrawal in language agents

The paper introduces NAQD‑Env, a synthetic benchmark designed to test language agents’ ability to selectively withdraw and resume actions when new evidence, permissions, or stop instructions arise. It evaluates models against a deterministic reference policy across eleven dependency families, measuring policy agreement, task value, withdrawal, resumption, and event reporting. Experiments on 350 scenarios show low withdrawal recall, no valid resumption, and limited policy alignment, highlighting the need to treat selective withdrawal as a distinct reliability component.

By Mohamed Abouzahra
arXiv AI
Oct 26

Permission to Retry: A Study of Authorization and Recovery in AI Agent Workflows

The paper investigates how AI agents can reliably recover from changes in authorization while executing tasks that involve external tools. It defines distinct obligations—checkpointing, permission to dispatch, evidence of external effects, and permission to reconcile—and evaluates them through a finite conformance study on 336 histories across multiple hosts, schedules, and provider contracts. The study demonstrates that all paired host cells produce identical outcomes and that various retry strategies (cached, revalidation, stable-key) successfully pass the majority of histories, while a component study of InfinityOS further isolates the impact of authority, contracts, and observations on recovery.

By Deekshith Marla, Kushagra Bhatnagar
arXiv AI
Aug 14

Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues

arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.

By Haoyuan Zhu
arXiv AI
Sep 4

ObserverBench: Testing Mechanistic Estimates for Intervention and Control

ObserverBench is a benchmark framework that evaluates whether internal mechanistic estimators—called observers—are suitable for guiding interventions, control, or safety actions in language models. It separates estimation accuracy from the loss incurred by the chosen action, showing that accurate predictions do not always lead to better decisions. Experiments on GPT‑2‑small, Qwen2.5‑7B, Gemma‑2‑9B‑it, and Qwen3.5‑9B demonstrate that observers trained on action loss can reduce deployment loss, while traditional metrics like AUROC may rank monitors differently from actual performance.

By Vijay Erramilli
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models

The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.

By Justin Bronder