arXiv:2607. 10202v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Forced-choice probes with counterbalanced orientations are a standard tool for measuring language-model "value dispositions," and a concentration/extremity index over repeated draws is read as how sharply a model commits.
arXiv:2607. 10202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values.
arXiv:2606. 01456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors whose objective is not aligned with the user's: recommenders optimize for engagement, sales assistants for purchases, negotiation agents for concessions.
arXiv:2609.25447v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study what LLMs do when a user applies pressure in an uncomfortable situation: a user insists, begs, flatters or grieves, and the model gives up a c...
arXiv:2608. 02665v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A benchmark score is a measurement instrument, yet most benchmarks read each item at a single canonical surface form.
arXiv:2606. 25449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A language model's memory can be worse than having no memory at all.
arXiv:2609. 31181v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts.
The paper proposes invalidation contracts to manage cached recovery suggestions in LLM agents, attaching version stamps and cacheability hints to each suggestion so stale entries can be evicted without trial and error. The protocol separates realized savings into validity (protocol‑dependent) and compliance (planner‑dependent), showing that row‑level invalidation can significantly improve first‑try compliance and recover a substantial portion of token costs across multiple models, while table‑level invalidation can be detrimental. The study evaluates the approach across seven models, three serving paths, two domains, and about 9,400 episodes, demonstrating deterministic validity and high eviction precision.
SemVerBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models (LLMs) understand and apply version-constraint resolution semantics, such as determining whether a version satisfies constraints like ^1.2.3 or >=2.0. The study finds that many models struggle with certain corner cases, with GPT‑5.1 performing poorly while Claude and Opus perform much better. The authors suggest that the failures stem from an activation/application gap rather than a lack of knowledge, and recommend that coding agents delegate version resolution to a dedicated resolver tool.
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
arXiv:2607. 12985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged.
arXiv:2608. 04719v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why.
arXiv:2606. 15474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down.