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.
By Sen Yang, Yuen-Hei Yeung
The paper treats human interventions during LLM agent failures as labels that pinpoint the internal computation that went wrong, rather than merely training data. In a controlled environment, the authors analyze one failure type—over‑asking a clarifying question when the request is already clear—using rule‑based overseer labels validated by blind human judgment. They find that the decision to ask versus act can be causally localized across several models, that over‑asking exhibits distinct mechanistic signatures, and that steering or weight consolidation can mitigate the issue, though outcomes vary by model family.
By Cesare Zavattari, Alessandro Tommasi, Giuseppe Prencipe
arXiv:2608. 19760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Audited against causal ground truth from executed replay in a single-agent tool environment (ALFWorld), none of the step-level credit signals used to train LLM agents -- LLM-judge scores, outcome-conditioned logprob ratios, or the policy's own confidence -- identifies which steps causally matter better than chance.
By Haiyue Zhang
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. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence).
arXiv:2606. 05932v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning even when the reward signal is spurious -- assigning credit to the group-plurality answer rather than a ground-truth verifier.
By Yuze Gao
arXiv:2608. 07813v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships.
By Yiyao Zhang, Diksha Goel, Hussain Ahmad, Shixun Huang, Jun Shen
arXiv:2606.07834v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Evidence-grounded fact verification increasingly uses LLM judges to turn evidence into terminal verdicts. Many task contracts deliberately in...
By Haoran Xu
arXiv:2605.11467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Reasoning models post-hoc rationalize answers they have already committed to internally, producing chains of *reasoning theater*: deliberativ...
By Swapnil Parekh, Naman Goyal
arXiv:2610.18298v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: What binds large language models on auditable, hypothesis-driven decision tasks, where every candidate can be checked against the evidence? On the publ...
By Jing Liu, Yongxing Qi, Ping Yao, Ting Wu
RGDT-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates large language models on Rule‑Governed Decision Tasks, where models must apply external rules to facts, justify decisions, and provide checkable justifications. The benchmark offers 202.1K condition‑level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight task‑probe combinations, and it labels warrant completeness through label‑blind extraction and deterministic checks. Evaluation shows that among correct responses, 40.2% of warrants are incomplete, and existing evaluators struggle to detect this, prompting the authors to train a reward model that improves AUROC to 69.24% and outperforms outcome‑supervised baselines.
arXiv:2610.19372v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Runtime policy verifiers can prevent agents from executing disallowed actions, but their decisions are typically used only for enforcement and discarde...
By Min-Young Yu
arXiv:2606. 07834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly turn verdicts into system commitments.
By Haoran Xu