The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.
arXiv:2607. 00269v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair.
arXiv:2607. 10487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result.
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users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.
arXiv:2606. 07316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Byzantine collaboration among large-language-model agents requires a finality-control primitive: given delivered stochastic, structured natural-language proposals, the protocol must decide whether the round supports a commit, what kind of commit, or a typed safe abort.
arXiv:2606. 07834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly turn verdicts into system commitments.
arXiv:2608. 04066v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust?
arXiv:2607. 05397v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise.
Large language model agents coordinate tasks via multi‑role, multi‑stage workflows that transform upstream state into intermediate artifacts such as summaries and plans. The study shows that when these artifacts are transformed—through compression, plan assimilation, or other handoff methods—the strict action‑binding constraints on upstream state can be weakened, turning mandatory requirements into optional information. In 1,296 synthetic episodes, direct handoff preserved all safety blockers, whereas transformed handoffs frequently deactivated or forbidden actions, but restoring full state fields or applying downstream verification can recover preservation.
arXiv:2606. 19356v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When multi-agent LLM systems produce bad answers, not all failures are equal: some answers are grounded in the right material but incomplete, while others are simply ungrounded and should be stopped.
arXiv:2608. 12476v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-term agent memory is usually treated as select--store--retrieve, but retrieval does not decide whether contradictory, superseded, retracted, deleted, or stale records may support an outgoing claim.
arXiv:2606. 25449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A language model's memory can be worse than having no memory at all.
arXiv:2605. 27784v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM agents are governed by long-lived prompt policies, where individually reasonable stand- ing rules can jointly govern the same pre- generation state.