Agents that act on a compressed representation of their history face a structural risk: if the representation aliases histories with different optimal actions, no rule measurable with respect to the representation can avoid an irreducible per-round loss, and the agent may be unable to detect this from its own transcript. This paper develops a four-layer theory of self-certification of representation adequacy.
arXiv:2607. 15459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A trained deep reinforcement learning policy is a black box, and we ask whether it can be made explainable by rewriting it as an executable logic program that reproduces its behaviour and that a person can read, a logic engine can run, and an optimizer can edit.
By Eduardo C. Garrido-Merch\'an
arXiv:2512. 23075v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Policy gradient methods for Large Language Models optimize a policy $\pi_\theta$ via a surrogate objective computed from samples of a rollout policy $\pi_{\text{roll}}$.
By Yingru Li, Jiacai Liu, Jiawei Xu, Yuxuan Tong, Ziniu Li, Qian Liu, Baoxiang Wang
arXiv:2608. 15810v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Runtime compression of serving state trades quality for capacity with no priced guarantee: systems adapt precision on load signals with no soundness statement, and certified approaches budget request-level risk by a union bound over a pre-declared event count.
By Fanzhe Wei, Li Liu
arXiv:2606. 29713v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination is the reliability bottleneck for LLM-based agents, and fact attribution verifiers are the last line of defense -- yet today's verifiers emit only opaque binary labels, leaving agents unable to self-correct and operators unable to audit.
By Aojie Yuan, Yi Nian, Haiyue Zhang, Zijian Su, Yue Zhao
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
By Mengdie Flora Wang, Haochen Xie, Guanghui Wang, Devin Zhang, Jae Oh Woo
arXiv:2606. 19808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes.
By Sajib Acharjee Dip, Dawei Zhou, Liqing Zhang
arXiv:2607. 11983v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A specialist tolerates blind spots that a generalist does not.
By Cheng Qian
arXiv:2604. 13517v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning is often approached by introducing value estimates at multiple discount factors.
By Jing Sun
arXiv:2608. 07725v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Average-reward reinforcement-learning regret is known up to logarithmic factors, but the numerical content of published guarantees is difficult to compare because probability mode, structural parameter, logarithmic normalization, prior information, and planning assumptions differ.
By Ibne Farabi Shihab, Abu Sa-Adat Mohamed Moon-Im Al Ahsan, Md Najmus Swaqeeb
arXiv:2608. 12700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that generate GPU kernels with language models report high correctness rates.
By Rishi Shah, Rishav Shrestha
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.
By Chenyu Zhou, Qiliang Jiang, Shuning Wu, Xu Zhou