arXiv:2610.34809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models now answer questions alongside other claims: a note in the system prompt, a message from another agent, their own earlier answer. We as...
The study investigates the role of rationales in role‑specialized question‑answering pipelines by fixing evidence and candidate answers while varying only the rationale sent from a reasoner to a verifier. Experiments on 400 examples from MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA show that faithful rationales add almost no answer accuracy, whereas corrupted rationales significantly alter support judgments, especially under explicit rationale‑checking prompts. Human audits reveal that many corrupted rationales lead to mistrust or rejection, highlighting the importance of evaluating rationale sharing as a verification mechanism rather than merely a means to improve accuracy.
The study investigates why small language model agents tend to repeat a tool call that just failed. By recording the failed call and its error message in the transcript, the authors measure a negative corrective gain—agents are more likely to repeat the failed action, with a drop of about 1.03 nats per token. The problem is traced to the harness design rather than the model’s understanding of errors, and the authors show that replacing the verbatim call with a runtime-generated description of the failure can reduce this backfiring effect by 76%.
The paper introduces TalkMesh, a decentralized network of small language model agents that learn to communicate effectively during inference. Each agent proposes an answer, scores it with a confidence head, and the most confident agent broadcasts a hint; lower‑confidence agents revise their proposals if a new suggestion scores higher. This gossip‑based consensus, trained via group relative policy optimization, enables a mesh of three agents to match the accuracy of majority voting over 32 samples, and scales to larger meshes to significantly boost performance on benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH-500.
arXiv:2608. 14375v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer.
arXiv:2610.35694v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational QA systems should fix errors when users push back and signal which answers to trust. We split each follow-up into its speech act (re-ask...
The paper investigates whether a large language model (LLM) possesses a notion of self by distinguishing between two biological analogues: a self‑index that separates the model’s own material from external material, and self‑reference that allows the model to recognize its own content. Using Qwen3.8‑27B, the authors demonstrate that the model’s internal representations consistently differentiate its own messages across all layers, that the model claims ownership of its messages with a measurable correlation to the self‑index, and that manipulating internal states can reverse or diminish this self‑attribution. The study further shows that the model’s self‑reference ability is enhanced when it engages in a “thinking mode” and that the self‑index influences the model’s performance on arithmetic tasks.
arXiv:2606. 01202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models do not simply choose an answer at the output layer.
arXiv:2609.37616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on th...
arXiv:2610.33201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents take instructions from the operator, repository configuration, user, tool results and saved memory, which often conflict. Instruction-hier...
arXiv:2607. 03598v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a person shares something with a language model, the model often answers the surface of the message rather than what the sender was doing by sending it: share a finished project and it critiques the code; share a raw late-night line and it runs a wellness check.
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.