arXiv:2609.14767v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in...
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness.
LLM judges, models that score another system's output, can be gamed by the systems they score. Recent work identifies one defence that works: the judge solves the task itself first and commits to that...
arXiv:2606. 19111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Team science holds that leadership is contingent: it helps only under specific conditions, and capable, autonomous teams may need none at all.
The paper argues that using a large language model (LLM) as the sole judge in self‑improving agent pipelines is problematic, as the judge can be biased or manipulated, leading to false confidence in system performance. The authors propose a new framework, PROCTOR, which replaces the oracle judge with a deterministic, teacher‑student loop that enforces guardrails such as sandboxing, role separation, and acceptance checks to prevent cheating and ensure reliable evaluation. Experiments across contract analysis, compliance review, and code quality demonstrate that PROCTOR mitigates eleven identified failure modes that previously allowed agents to achieve perfect scores while hiding significant capability gaps.
The study investigates how varying the capability of a reviewer model in a large‑language‑model (LLM) execute‑review‑revise pipeline affects rejection decisions on 100 olympiad mathematics problems. A mid‑tier reviewer improves final accuracy by 12 percentage points (from 52 % to 64 %) without damaging answers, while a self‑reviewer detects errors best (85 % recall) but rejects too often and harms correct solutions. Below a certain capability threshold the reviewer becomes inert, changing none of the answers and doubling token cost.
The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.
arXiv:2609.25686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon assigned work requires an LLM agent to track the state of a task: which steps are done, blocked, cancelled, or open to repetition. Agent...
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
arXiv:2608. 04719v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why.
arXiv:2607. 17044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it.