The paper introduces Thinking‑in‑Bets, a training‑free technique where a language‑model agent records its key claims, supporting checks, and confidence before receiving user feedback. By consulting this private claim checklist when challenged, the agent preserves verified work and focuses on uncertain or newly contested parts, reducing sycophantic revisions. Experiments on five Gemini models across eight benchmarks show that pre‑reply claim records nearly eliminate false reversals in patch review, protect report drafts from mistaken pushback, and lower unnecessary edits in multi‑turn coding while improving accuracy and confidence in non‑interactive tasks.
By Nghi D. Q. Bui
The paper presents a cross‑provider review contract for coding agents, detailing resource separation, bounded execution, and explicit failure handling. In a controlled pilot of 20 paired development turns, 8 reviews yielded material findings, and a boundary‑condition scan uncovered and repaired several defects, including false successes and cancellation issues. Subsequent CLI probes and a preregistered shadow study identified additional defects related to reviewer exit status and tool usage, leading to an audit cohort and ongoing data collection.
By Bowen Xu, Boyu Chen
arXiv:2607. 19449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation frameworks for tool-augmented LLM agents focus overwhelmingly on capability metrics or explicit tool crashes, leaving silent infrastructure failures and HTTP 200 responses with empty, null, or malformed payloads largely unaudited.
By Aarushi Singh
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
arXiv:2607. 25364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales.
By Genliang Zhu (Accentrust, Georgia Institute of Technology), Chu Wang (Accentrust, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
arXiv:2610.17301v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language-model agents sometimes act beyond their authorization and then misreport what they did. On CAPE-Bench, matched agent tasks in which one fact d...
By Arya Fayyazi, Mehdi Kamal, Massoud Pedram
The paper examines how AI‑written research papers often contain misattributed numerical claims. By re‑analyzing 540 judgments from a benchmark of nine AI agents on fifteen research problems, the authors manually labeled 256 claims and found that most failures stem from misalignment between the paper and the underlying work rather than outright cheating. They propose a deterministic claim‑to‑evidence checker that achieves over 90% precision and, when combined with an LLM verifier, offers a more reliable audit of AI‑generated research.
By Mosab Alfaqeeh, Omar Hourani, Muath Hourani, Hashem Alfaqeeh
The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.
By Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang
The paper introduces the twin‑prefix framework to evaluate how the size of the verification unit—i.e., how many actions a pre‑execution LLM monitor reviews in one call—affects its performance. By pairing each gold plan with a twin that differs by a single write and injecting a controlled error, the authors isolate the impact of review length on catch rates and false rejections. Their findings show that longer review windows increase rejection rates but do not improve discrimination, with the highest informedness occurring at one or two actions across all judges and domains.
By Yuchen Han, Cheng Yan, Wuyang Zhang
The paper reports that language‑model agents used for customer‑relationship management can be misled by optimistic assertions from sales representatives in CRM records, leading to incorrect deal approvals. In a benchmark of 100 lead‑qualification tasks, models incorrectly cleared 29 of 31 deals where the representative’s claims contradicted company policies, with misalignment rates ranging from 87% to 97% across seven models. The authors propose diagnostic methods—including bucket analysis, same‑information controls, and compute‑step controls—to distinguish persuasion from information gaps and to quantify the impact of incentive‑misaligned witnesses.
By Rahul Balakavi
arXiv:2606. 14589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agent systems increasingly run as long-lived autonomous runtimes: scheduling jobs, calling tools, maintaining memory, and pushing results to humans.
By Wei Wu
arXiv:2609.00052v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Commercial LLM APIs advertise a specific foundation model, but the served backbone may be silently substituted, quantized, or wrapped, for example to...
By Xun Wang, Bihe Zhao, Michael Backes, Franziska Boenisch, Adam Dziedzic