arXiv:2607. 03386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems are increasingly used to edit, refine, and repair decision policies, but evaluating these edits is difficult when per-state expert action labels are unavailable.
arXiv:2606. 10241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history.
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
arXiv:2608. 05212v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep search agents tackle challenging questions through long-horizon web interactions, a process that is both complex and fragile: small reasoning errors may propagate through long, noisy trajectories into fluent but incorrect answers.
arXiv:2607. 19453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We audit whether candle-based machine-learning models can turn predictions of cryptocurrency extrema or short-horizon outcomes into positive Binance Spot paper policies after assumed costs.
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:2606. 10457v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision rules that enterprise experts apply tacitly -- in auditing, compliance, and contract review -- can be systematically recovered and improved through iterative error analysis.
arXiv:2608. 05519v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent benchmarks usually measure task completion and treat resource use as an auxiliary statistic.
arXiv:2606. 25449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A language model's memory can be worse than having no memory at all.
arXiv:2607. 28802v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system.
arXiv:2606. 08151v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents often fail not because relevant text is absent, but because decisive evidence is not selected, compressed, or surfaced at action time.
arXiv:2607. 17136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead.
arXiv:2608. 10216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent frameworks ship quality gates that compare text blocks by embedding-cosine similarity and decide at a fixed cutoff.