arXiv:2606. 05263v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks.
arXiv:2609.36178v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has become a promising approach for training large language model agents. However, its uniform assignment o...
arXiv:2609.06100v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Verifiable outcome rewards guide language-model post-training, but sequence-level advantages do not identify which token-level decisions should be pr...
arXiv:2605. 02909v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become a powerful approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2609.40360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet their predictions...
The paper introduces VICT, a method that leverages the internal structure of verifiable tasks to perform fine‑grained credit assignment for long‑horizon LLM agents. VICT exposes executable or evidence‑backed atoms from a task’s terminal verifier and traces them back to actions via dependency‑valid proof edges, redistributing advantage only along these edges. This approach improves performance on ALFWorld and WebShop compared to outcome‑only training and matches recent fine‑grained credit methods without requiring additional critics, labels, or inference‑time verifier access.
arXiv:2607. 04412v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) for non-verifiable instruction following increasingly relies on LLM judges with prompt-specific rubrics as reward signals.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
The paper investigates how personalized agents decide to use, ignore, update, or query retrieved user memory before acting on a task. An empirical audit protocol is developed to test structured intermediate outputs, revealing that while exposing state definitions improves accuracy, an explicit state-output field does not significantly enhance policy accuracy for large language models. The study also shows that example-level accuracy overstates consistency, with full four‑way family success being rare, and that providing benchmark‑associated state labels merely conditions predictions rather than proving internal fidelity.
arXiv:2609.39608v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rule-based reasoning, as in eligibility checks and contract reviews, requires language models to assess evidence against individual conditions and comb...
Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence).
arXiv:2608. 06861v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training large language model agents in long-horizon environments requires assigning credit from sparse terminal outcomes to individual actions.
arXiv:2607. 12985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged.