arXiv:2606. 23983v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A single forward pass of a capable model is a fast, fluent, and unreliable problem-solver: it is right often enough to be useful and wrong often enough to be dangerous; in language models, such confident errors are known as hallucinations.
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.
arXiv:2606. 01416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery.
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.
arXiv:2607. 02873v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model agents driving security tool suites over the Model Context Protocol are increasingly common.
arXiv:2512. 02080v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The integration of Formal Verification tools with Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a path to scale software verification beyond manual workflows.
Translating natural-language planning intent into verified plans is a longstanding challenge: people communicate goals in language, while classical planners require formal PDDL specifications. Recent agentic frameworks bridge this gap by orchestrating a pool of specialized repair agents inside a verifier-checked refinement loop, but the orchestrator at the centre is itself a prompted frontier LLM, paying a frontier-LLM API call at every refinement step.
arXiv:2609.20973v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Complex problem solving (CPS) with large language models (LLMs) is often framed as a matter of stronger reasoning or longer generation. Yet early-ste...
arXiv:2607. 09706v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models turn a worded situation into a numeric plan, and the dominant pipelines (NL4Opt, OptiMUS, ORLM, OR-LLM-Agent) commit to a single objective and point-valued coefficients, then solve once.
The paper introduces SPAR, a closed‑loop simulation platform that couples real‑time AUV control software with a higher‑level orchestration layer for fault injection, prompting, and evaluation of large language models (LLMs) in diagnosing and recovering from anomalies. SPAR enables ensemble testing of LLMs, comparing a frontier model with three locally deployable LLMs on a mass‑shift fault scenario across 480 trials, revealing that model choice significantly affects diagnostic accuracy. The study demonstrates that while the frontier model consistently ranks the correct fault mechanism among its top hypotheses, local models succeed mainly when they follow the full diagnostic procedure, and overall diagnosis and operational decisions appear decoupled in this dataset.
FL-MAESTRO is a multi‑agent orchestrator that uses three specialized large language model agents to jointly decide the communication topology, per‑client resource allocation, and aggregation rule in each federated learning round. A coordinator merges the agents’ analyses, and a non‑LLM feasibility check validates the decision before execution. By filtering out clients whose updates would never be aggregated, the system eliminates the main source of wasted round energy in volatile edge networks and works across heterogeneous device classes without per‑class energy models, achieving comparable accuracy to the best energy‑aware baseline while reducing wasted energy from over a third to near zero on a non‑IID CIFAR‑10 benchmark.
arXiv:2605. 22949v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Foundation-model pools are increasingly used as black-box responders in coordinated systems where a coordinator must decide which response to trust.
arXiv:2607. 00871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving agents violate the assumption behind most learning-theoretic guarantees: the data, evaluator, components, and hypothesis space are produced by the policy being updated.