arXiv:2607. 13034v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires.
The paper investigates how multiple pre‑action controls—authority, resource, and evidence gates—interact in agentic AI systems. It formalizes remediation‑induced control coupling, showing that remediation can invalidate earlier judgments and that the order of remediation matters. The authors propose a remediate‑and‑regate protocol to restore soundness, analyze non‑commuting remediation operators, and demonstrate the approach on a deterministic open‑data artifact with three published engines.
Two prompts can request the same code change and produce the same correct patch, yet cause a coding agent to perform radically different kinds and amounts of work. We study this effect in a preregistered benchmark spanning 4,644 valid runs, 24 deterministic coding tasks, seven reasoning models, and two real agent harnesses.
arXiv:2607. 04528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged.
arXiv:2608.28795v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern artificial-intelligence coding agents can be equipped with tools for checking their own work e.g. a linter, a boot probe, a shell, a screensho...
arXiv:2607. 15854v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents can fix a failing example without preserving the domain rule that made it fail, so later generations can repeat the same plausible mistake.
The paper discusses how the same computational task can require different reasoning strategies depending on the order in which evidence arrives, introducing the concept of an "information‑slack dilemma." It argues that early computation may be useful only if its benefits outweigh the costs of later verification, invalidation, and recovery, and proposes a research agenda focused on selective recovery and predictive policies. The authors emphasize evaluating these approaches by separating early‑execution effects, deployment value versus full‑input alternatives, and the added value of predictive policies while considering shared‑resource costs.
arXiv:2606. 14357v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier coding models may spend substantial capacity learning not only program behavior, but also accidental entropy in human repositories.
arXiv:2607. 17352v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Designing effective Lean proof agents is a central challenge in formal mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
arXiv:2607. 08124v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The behavior of an LLM agent is determined not only by the underlying model, but also by its harness: the executable program that constructs context, invokes tools, verifies intermediate results, and recovers from failures.
Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged. We show that this harness can change the agent's multi-step beliefs even when the task, environment, and base LLM are fixed.