SiLR introduces a structure‑preserving admission and process reward mechanism for large language model (LLM) tool agents. Unlike traditional scalar‑score gates that can trap agents in plateau trajectories, SiLR shadow‑executes each proposal and admits it based on a product order over branch‑level violation states, ensuring safe and recoverable actions. Experiments on Gym‑ANM and CityLearn benchmarks show SiLR consistently recovers all multi‑action episodes and outperforms scalar gates, while also providing a robust reward signal for policy learning.
arXiv:2607. 07405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully.
arXiv:2607. 17240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When does a committed intermediate stage in an LLM reasoning pipeline earn its cost?
arXiv:2607. 06503v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
arXiv:2606. 31023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hard-constrained sequential decision systems have no certified way to spend the test-time compute of modern AI: executing the multi-step drafts of a learned policy or a frozen LLM forfeits the feasibility guarantee a trusted solver provides, while invoking the solver at every step forfeits the speed the AI offers.
arXiv:2607. 12986v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Plan evaluators can reward a strategic plan for becoming less explicit.
The paper argues that in multi‑turn agentic reinforcement learning, credit assignment should be viewed as a coverage problem rather than a targeting problem. It introduces verifier information density (V_d) as a structural metric, showing that terminal‑state verifiers operate in a low‑V_d regime where targeting fails. Experiments on tau^2‑bench, BFCL, and ToolACE‑2‑8B demonstrate that uniformly distributing reward across all turns outperforms sparse, targeted rewards, and that full chain coverage is necessary for optimal performance.
arXiv:2606. 11686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: End-to-end task-success is the dominant way to evaluate LLM agents, but one aggregate number tells you that an agent regressed, not where.
The paper introduces a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on long‑horizon state tracking by having them compute the MD5 hash through 196 dependent tool calls across 64 rounds, carrying four 32‑bit words in context. It shows that a mixture‑of‑experts LLM can maintain the full state and produce correct digests in most runs, even when all primitive tools are replaced by another LLM. The study isolates state‑tracking difficulty from instruction interpretation and identifies key factors—contextual reasoning and worker voting—that enable success.
The paper investigates why reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) reduces the diversity of solutions in reasoning tasks. By analyzing the Countdown task, the authors show that RLVR contracts the solution space mainly at the entrance—before the first arithmetic operation—causing a 67% drop in solution coverage. They demonstrate that providing an unselected entrance prefix or applying entrance‑targeted interventions can restore or even improve coverage without harming accuracy.
arXiv:2604. 11943v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: An OS kernel that runs LLM inference internally can read the model's own next-token logit distribution before any text is generated, and act on it as a governance primitive.
arXiv:2606. 29441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Inference-time safety methods for large language models have proliferated, yet no systematic comparison exists.