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. 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. 25152v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-running autonomous agents plan, act, and judge their own completion without human intervention.
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.
arXiv:2606. 31023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hard-constrained sequential decision systems have no certified way to spend the test-time compute of modern AI: executing the multi-step drafts of a learned policy or a frozen LLM forfeits the feasibility guarantee a trusted solver provides, while invoking the solver at every step forfeits the speed the AI offers.
arXiv:2607. 04542v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Every LLM agent run re-derives its behavior token by token on a frontier model: brilliant, expensive, slow, and unbounded.
arXiv:2607. 13070v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety claims for self-improving agent runtimes are almost always self-graded: a policy file, a guardrail, a promise in a README.
arXiv:2606. 26057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are granted access to tools, APIs, and other infrastructure, making them active principals in those systems.
arXiv:2606. 09863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise.
arXiv:2605. 08747v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Standard embodied evaluations do not independently score whether an agent correctly commits to task completion at episode closure, a capacity we call terminal commitment.
arXiv:2608. 02464v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself.
arXiv:2607. 13070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety claims on self-improving agent runtimes are almost always self-graded: a policy file, a guardrail, or a README commitment.
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.