arXiv:2608. 14588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sequential multi-agent LLM pipelines chain specialized agents without verification at handoffs, creating a structural flaw with measurable and severe consequences.
arXiv:2607. 06503v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable.
arXiv:2608. 06949v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias.
Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable. We show that failure is predictable early from the agent's internal representations: lightweight per-round probes on hidden activations anticipate eventual episode failure as early as the first interaction round, where scorers reading only the agent's observable behavior are barely better than chance.
arXiv:2608. 08239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM routers promise efficiency by matching each request to the cheapest adequate model, and are increasingly applied per step inside multi-step agents.
arXiv:2607. 18292v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Bigger language models are less reliable.
arXiv:2606. 07846v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-agent workflows chain model calls and tool invocations, and spend most of their wall-clock time waiting on upstream operations before downstream ones can start.
arXiv:2607. 07405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully.
arXiv:2607. 07097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect.
arXiv:2607. 04528v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged.
arXiv:2605. 29055v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper describes an approach to hallucination detection and mitigation using a HOPE-inspired Nested Learning architecture with Continuum Memory Systems (CMS) and semantic similarity caching, tested on a hybrid benchmark of 310 prompts (217 epistemic-uncertainty prompts, 93 fabrication-induction stress tests).
arXiv:2606. 11688v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon LLM agents are not trusted to run unattended: with no human watching, they confidently report success they never verified.
arXiv:2607. 00871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving agents violate the assumption behind most learning-theoretic guarantees: the data, evaluator, components, and hypothesis space are produced by the policy being updated.