arXiv Machine Learning By Otto Nyberg, Fausto Carcassi, Davide Tugnoli, Giovanni Cin\`a

2-Step Agent: A Framework for the Interaction of a Decision Maker with AI Decision Support

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2602. 21889v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predictions from ML models support human decision making in several fields, including high-stakes ones such as healthcare and the judiciary.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 12

Infra-Bayesian Reinforcement Learning Agents Outperform Classical RL For Worst-Case Robustness

arXiv:2605. 23146v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Classical reinforcement learning assumes the agent interacts with a fixed environment whose behavior does not depend on the agent's policy.

By Manish Aryal, Faiyaz Azam, Agnivo Banerjee, Syed Mahir Ahamed, Sai Sidhanth Manoharan Jayanthi, Allegra Laro, Cl\'ement Legentilhomme, Andrew Lin, Florian Lorkowski, Marina P\'erez del Valle, Radman Rakhshandehroo, Patric Rommel, Emanuel Ruzak, Nathan Theng, Paul Yushin Rapoport
arXiv AI
Sep 10

When Agents Say One Thing and Do Another: Validating Elicited Beliefs from LLMs

The paper introduces a decision‑theoretic framework that elicits both probability judgments and decisions from large language models (LLMs) to test whether their reported beliefs are consistent with their actions. It shows that this framework yields empirically testable conditions without assuming a specific utility function. In clinical diagnosis simulations, the authors find that while LLMs’ reported beliefs are not perfect reflections of the information in their decisions, the discrepancies are small for the strongest models.

By Khurram Yamin, Jingjing Tang, Santiago Cortes-Gomez, Amit Sharma, Eric Horvitz, Bryan Wilder