arXiv AI By Guodong Xu

Calibrating Criterion Revision in LLM Agents: Failure Modes and a Trace-Anchored Protocol

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.

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 AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 14

Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues

arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.

By Haoyuan Zhu
arXiv AI
Jun 8

Hierarchical Certified Semantic Commitment for Byzantine-Resilient LLM-Agent Collaboration

arXiv:2606. 07316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Byzantine collaboration among large-language-model agents requires a finality-control primitive: given delivered stochastic, structured natural-language proposals, the protocol must decide whether the round supports a commit, what kind of commit, or a typed safe abort.

By Haoran Xu, Lei Zhang, Iadh Ounis, Xianbin Wang