arXiv Machine Learning By Anqi Peter Li, Kaden Kim

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2609. 10954v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model.

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 Computation and Language
Sep 10

Stable Answers, Unfinished Reasoning: Why Self-Consensus Is Not a Safe Early-Exit Signal

The paper investigates whether self-consensus—stopping a reasoning model when its partial trajectory’s answers agree—can safely reduce inference cost. A large sweep of 3,520 consensus rules on two models and three benchmarks failed to meet predefined safety criteria, while a boundary‑confidence control (DEER) succeeded. The study shows that agreement signals that an answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that reasoning has finished, leading to premature stops and missed corrections even when token savings are significant.

By Yunxiang Mo, Donghao Zhao, Hejia Geng
arXiv AI
1d ago

The Delegation Danger Band: Why Mid-Capability Sub-Agents Over-Trust Inherited Stale State

The paper investigates how inherited state affects sub-agent performance in multi-agent frameworks, comparing three inheritance policies—Reset, Selective, and Full—across a ladder of Qwen3 models. It finds that reliance on stale state decreases with model capability, but a mid-capability model (Qwen3‑1.7B) exhibits a statistically significant local minimum of net harm, defining a "danger band." Selective handoff consistently improves accuracy over Full, especially within the danger band, while a fixed-threshold router fails on other datasets.

By Jundong Hu, Shekar Ramachandran
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Where Does Exactly-Once Live? Model, Harness, and Tool-Contract Effects on Duplicate Side Effects in LLM Agents

The paper investigates where exactly‑once semantics should be enforced for tool‑using agents—within the model, the agent harness, or the tool contract—by evaluating 25,930 episodes across nine models, three harnesses, two contract variants, and fifteen recovery conditions. Using the LIMBO sandbox, the study shows that when an immediate read‑back is available, frontier models rarely duplicate lost acknowledgements, whereas weaker models do; when read‑back is unavailable, the contract’s idempotency keys explain most duplicate behavior. The authors prove that verification‑only policies cannot guarantee exactly‑once under late commits without bounded in‑flight time, and that waiting only helps when delays are short and predictable. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that enforcing exactly‑once semantics largely depends on the tool contract and fault type, guiding designers on where to focus reliability mechanisms for LLM agents."

By Jiapeng Li