arXiv AI

Testing the Planning Claims of LLM-Based Agents against Formal Semantics

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

INTENT-AS-A-TOOL Makes it Easy to Track Agentic Misalignment

The paper introduces INTENT-AS-A-TOOL, a method that equips large language models with intent-targeted tools to provide a fine-grained, judge‑free signal of their commitment to specific behaviors during reasoning. By monitoring the probability of calling these intent tools, the authors can track how intent evolves throughout generation, complementing chain‑of‑thought monitoring and expanding post‑hoc labels into dense trajectories. The approach identifies critical steps for online intervention, demonstrating that action preferences are useful for detecting agentic misalignment in autonomous agents.

By Yutong Zhang, Jianshuo Dong, Peng Xu, Long Wang, Jie Zhang, Tianwei Zhang, Xiaoping Zhang, Han Qiu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 19

Training the Orchestrator: A Supervised Approach to End-to-End PDDL Planning with LLM Agents

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 AI
4d ago

Same Context, Different Agents: A Behavioral Study of Semantic Layers, Orchestration and Compaction in Data Agents

The study examines how three context‑engineering techniques—semantic layers, orchestration, and compaction—affect data agents that answer questions over heterogeneous data. Using seven large language models on 1,514 long‑horizon tasks, the authors identify three agent behavior groups (investigators, premature answerers, early stoppers) and show that each technique benefits only the group it aligns with, while sometimes harming others. Combining the techniques yields smaller net gains than the sum of individual effects, leading to guidance on selecting techniques based on agent behavior, task demands, and accuracy‑cost trade‑offs.

By Zhivar Sourati, Marianne Menglin Liu, Zheng Wang, Rongguang Wang, Sai Ashish Somayajula, Tao Sheng, Kyu J. Han, Sujith Ravi, Dan Roth
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 30

Theory of Mind and Persuasion Beyond Conversation: Assessing the Capacity of LLMs to Induce Belief States via Planning and Action

Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on passive question-answering formats, but the deployment of LLMs in increasingly agentic and autonomous forms demands new evaluations. In this paper we evaluate an agent's ability to induce specific belief states in other agents by taking actions rather than using conversational persuasion, a capability we call Non-Conversational Planning ToM (NCP-ToM).

arXiv AI
Sep 28

Agentick: A Unified Benchmark for General Sequential Decision-Making Agents

Agentick is a unified benchmark for sequential decision‑making agents that evaluates RL, LLM, VLM, hybrid, and human agents on 37 procedurally generated tasks across six capability categories, four difficulty levels, and five observation modalities via a single Gymnasium‑compatible interface. It includes a Coding API, oracle reference policies, pre‑built SFT datasets, a composable agent harness, and a live leaderboard. An evaluation of 27 configurations and over 90,000 episodes shows no single approach dominates, with GPT‑5 mini leading overall, PPO excelling in planning and multi‑agent tasks, and the reasoning harness boosting LLM performance by 3‑10×, while ASCII observations outperform natural language.

By Roger Creus Castanyer, Pablo Samuel Castro, Glen Berseth
arXiv AI
Jul 14

AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?

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 AI
Sep 25

IDRBench: Benchmarking the Interactive Capabilities of Deep Research Agents

IDRBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate the interactive capabilities of deep research agents that use large language models. It introduces controlled opportunities for clarification within a common workflow, comparing autonomous and interactive trajectories by measuring task‑specific report alignment and interaction cost. Experiments on 100 tasks with seven LLMs show that interaction consistently improves alignment, though its effectiveness varies depending on the agents’ questions and feedback integration.

By Yingchaojie Feng, Qiang Huang, Xiaoya Xie, Zhaorui Yang, Jun Yu, Wei Chen, Anthony K. H. Tung
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

BASIS: Evaluating Belief-Aware Solutions in Interactive Settings beyond Instructions

BASIS is a benchmark that tests large language model agents on their ability to infer users’ mental states, detect belief‑reality mismatches, and use this insight to craft better solutions in interactive settings. The study shows that current models often ignore users’ mental states, leading to poorer outcomes, while explicitly eliciting and incorporating such information improves solution quality. Additional experiments compare BASIS with Chain‑of‑Thought prompting, targeted training, and multi‑agent collaboration to demonstrate the practical benefits of mental‑state awareness.

By Minyuan Ruan, Ziyue Wang, Kaiming Liu, Yunghwei Lai, Peng Li, Yang Liu