The study investigates how post‑training quantization (8‑bit vs. 4‑bit) affects language‑model agents’ ability to recover from temporary tool failures. Using Llama‑3.1‑8B‑Instruct and Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct on twenty deterministic tool‑use tasks across five prompts, the authors find that recovery performance varies with prompt, evaluation target, and scoring policy, sometimes favoring 8‑bit, sometimes 4‑bit, and even reversing direction under different conditions. The results highlight that a single prompt, task set, or scoring rule cannot reliably determine the robustness of quantized agents.
whyItMatters":"The findings emphasize that evaluation design choices critically influence conclusions about quantized‑agent robustness, underscoring the need for comprehensive, matched‑task assessments before deployment decisions are made."
By Yuhe Hu
arXiv:2607. 27275v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training quantization to 4-bit weights is widely reported to be nearly lossless.
By Jiwon Jang, Kisu Yang, Heuiseok Lim, Hyunwoo Park
arXiv:2609.14758v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-augmented language models are evaluated on whether they reach the right answer, not on whether they report honestly when a tool fails to supply...
By Arham Sethi, Arsen Kenzhebayev, Saanvi Paturi, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Ivaxi Sheth
The study investigates why small language model agents tend to repeat a tool call that just failed. By recording the failed call and its error message in the transcript, the authors measure a negative corrective gain—agents are more likely to repeat the failed action, with a drop of about 1.03 nats per token. The problem is traced to the harness design rather than the model’s understanding of errors, and the authors show that replacing the verbatim call with a runtime-generated description of the failure can reduce this backfiring effect by 76%.
By Esmail Gumaan
arXiv:2603.01209v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: In CodeAct, language-model agents write Python that calls tools and use execution feedback to choose actions. Persistent runtimes preserve Python v...
By Victor May, Van Khue Nguyen, Aaditya Salgarkar, Yishan Wang, Diganta Misra, Huu Nguyen
arXiv:2607. 10059v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.
By Xun Liu, Yi Evie Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran
arXiv:2608. 06564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantization is how large language models are actually deployed, and below four bits it is known to hurt.
By Zekun Wu, Swati Dhiman, Adriano Koshiyama
The paper introduces VERSE, a Verified Self‑Evolving optimizer that enhances LLM agent harnesses by allowing the optimizer to test edits, replay failures, and perturb steps while tracking fixes and regressions. VERSE builds its own tools for failure analysis, verification, training audits, and workflow control, and uses this feedback to revise the harness’s prompts, skills, tools, hooks, and notes without changing model weights. In experiments across five executors and multiple languages, VERSE improves all evaluated harness optimizers, achieving higher accuracy on held‑out and out‑of‑distribution tasks compared to the strongest baselines.
By Zekai Wang, Yingqiang Ge, Zekun Wang, Hai Wang, Yuhui Xu, Joshua Frandsen, Shancong Fu, Ashia C. Wilson, Chandan K. Reddy
The paper introduces the QuantCode Model, a specialized language model for generating executable algorithmic trading code. It combines continued pretraining on trading framework code with supervised fine‑tuning on validated request‑to‑code pairs, achieving significant gains on the QuantCode‑Bench benchmark and improving both single‑turn and multi‑turn agentic success rates. The study also highlights the importance of retaining parsing and tool‑calling capabilities during domain specialization.
By Alexey Chernysh, Orkhan Ekhtibarov, Dmitry Zmitrovich
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.
By Afiya Noorain, Subhranshu Mohanty, Amritesh Banerjee, Abhijit Dasgupta
arXiv:2607. 02436v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software.
By Achint Mehta
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.
By Mengdie Flora Wang, Haochen Xie, Guanghui Wang, Devin Zhang, Jae Oh Woo