arXiv:2607. 28666v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprise AI programmes stall at a rate that is widely quoted and poorly explained.
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.
READY or Not: Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment introduces a framework for qualifying AI agents for enterprise workflows. It measures reliability and operating cost under various oversight policies, selects the minimum‑cost policy that meets a specified reliability target, and statistically qualifies it on held‑out cases. In a clinical audit study, READY revealed that two agents with nearly identical autonomous accuracy required markedly different levels of human review to achieve the same reliability target.
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
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.
The paper investigates the reliability of tool‑using agents, focusing on two failure modes: selecting the wrong tool and constructing incorrect arguments. It introduces a correct‑invocation rate metric to distinguish these errors and evaluates five open‑weight models on multi‑step tasks up to depth 8, finding that by depth 6 about 70% of a model’s clean‑context capability is lost due to earlier mistakes. The study reveals that exact‑match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory forces severity and recovery parameters to extreme values, and proposes a conditional‑on‑state scoring remedy that yields more realistic severity estimates.
arXiv:2608. 08709v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The reliability of AI generative models is typically measured by output correctness, yet in practice it depends on the effort required to verify those outputs.
arXiv:2607. 17883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprises will not deploy AI agents they cannot trust, and the most-cited reason for distrust is hallucination: confident, fluent output that is simply not true.
The paper introduces PACT, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well enterprise AI assistants follow compliance rules when faced with various pressures such as persistent users or hurried managers. PACT covers twelve regulated domains and forty-eight realistic multi‑turn scenarios, pairing each rule with a shortcut that violates it and applying different pressures across wording and system‑prompt modes. Using PACT, the authors profile six metrics of compliance and aggregate them into a PACTScore, revealing significant variability among 22 LLM models and that even top performers misapply rules 6–10% of the time, with user pressure increasing violations by 65% on average.
arXiv:2609.10494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprises deploy systems, not checkpoints. Usable capability depends jointly on weights, serving route, precision, output contract, and harness, yet...
arXiv:2606. 01513v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: High-stakes enterprise document generation, including financial dispute narratives, compliance notices, and audit summaries, demands schema correctness, policy compliance, and low-latency operation at scale.
arXiv:2607. 25398v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents are increasingly deployed under standing instructions: a system prompt, a policy file, or a skills document is placed in context, and the agent is trusted to let it govern every action that follows.
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.