arXiv:2607. 21306v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems.
By Verona Teo, Raghav Jain, Tobias Gerstenberg, Max Kleiman-Weiner
arXiv:2608.23543v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: While AI assistance can improve human task performance in the short term, it may also undermine the development of skills in the longer term. We examin...
By Shang Wu, Catarina G Belem, Shuyuan Fu, Mark Steyvers, Padhraic Smyth
The paper investigates the limitations of post-training AI agents that can autonomously train large language models. It distinguishes between execution-level capability—making adjustments within a chosen training strategy—and strategy-level capability—revising the overall approach based on new evidence. Analysis of many public post-training runs shows that agents lock into a strategy early and then only perform local tweaks, regardless of task. Experiments with experience scaffolds, human guidance, and extra compute improve execution but do not enable strategy reevaluation, indicating that agents lack a mechanism to spontaneously reassess their strategy during training.
By Joy Jia Yin Lim, Xin Huang, Hao Peng, Yaxi Lu, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Maosong Sun, Yankai Lin
The paper introduces a new reward, GRPO, that encourages large reasoning models (LRMs) to efficiently determine whether a task is solvable before generating a full chain of thought. Fine‑tuning 4B LRMs with this reward improves their ability to abstain from answering unanswerable prompts by an average of 12.8% while producing 44% shorter chains of thought. The approach also preserves the models’ overall answering performance.
By Polina Tsvilodub, Max H\"oth, Michael Franke, Bj\"orn Deiseroth, Carina Kauf
The paper introduces Test-Time Adaptation through Human‑Agent Interaction (TAHI), a method that uses iterative human feedback to adapt AI agents to individual users’ criteria. By integrating cross‑session interaction data into agent context and weights, and building an evolving rubric module, the authors demonstrate that agents can improve task success by 4.5–20.9% after only a few interactions. The evolving rubric also serves as a scalable annotation tool, detecting 16.0–22.3% more failures than language models or humans alone, and personalized agents can even generalize improvements up to 8.8% across users.
By Zora Zhiruo Wang, Apurva Gandhi, Rulin Shao, Aspen Chen, Jonas Mueller, Zhiqi Liang, Jett Chen, Michael Ryan, Qianou Ma, Luxi He, Zhoujun Cheng, Andre He, Seungone Kim, Jiayi Geng, Mingqian Zheng, Weiwei Sun, Zheyuan Zhang, Xinran Zhao, Yike Wang, Abe Hou, Liwei Jiang, Pang Wei Koh, Diyi Yang, Graham Neubig, Daniel Fried
The paper re‑evaluates memory‑based self‑improving agents by adding multiple runs to measure variance and by randomizing task order. It finds that agent performance is noisy in complex, multi‑step environments and that improvement depends heavily on the sequence of tasks, revealing a hidden curriculum effect. The authors suggest that underspecification of tasks and environments contributes to this fragility and demonstrate that adding detailed rubrics and feedback can partially mitigate performance drops, though gaps remain.
By Qinyuan Ye, Yu Li, Yada Pruksachatkun, Jiaxin Zhang, Chien-Sheng Wu