arXiv:2604. 09482v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains remains challenging as intermediate steps are often not locally verifiable: unlike math or code, evaluating step correctness may require synthesizing clues across large external knowledge sources.
By Jiwoong Sohn, Tomasz Sternal, Kenneth Styppa, Torsten Hoefler, Michael Moor
StepSafe introduces a training framework called ASPO that focuses on step‑level timely intervention in agentic systems. It aligns decisions with their respective prefixes, rewards actions that fit the current stage, and uses adaptive feedback self‑distillation to credit reasoning. The resulting StepSafe guardrail achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on five agent‑safety benchmarks, improving the safety‑utility Pareto curve with a Youden’s J of 53.0 for a 4B model.
By Siyi Gu, Kunhan Gao, Chao Peter Yang, Sukanta Ganguly, Rex Ying, Arman Cohan
arXiv:2609.37304v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large reasoning models improve performance on challenging problems by allocating additional computation before answering, but longer reasoning does not...
By Zhibin Wen, Tao Han, Lei Bai, Can Li, Yang Xu
arXiv:2609.39957v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Coding agents solve repository-level tasks through sequences of actions, where a single erroneous action can misdirect subsequent decisions and incre...
By Jiangrui Zhao, Chenglong Li, Meng Zhang, Xiaoting Du
The paper introduces MENTOR, a multi‑agent framework that provides on‑policy pedagogical intervention to address zero‑reward collapse in reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards. MENTOR diagnoses failures in real time and generates targeted prompts to guide the learning agent, integrating seamlessly with existing policy optimization pipelines such as GRPO. Experiments on math and code generation tasks show that MENTOR significantly reduces collapse, achieving up to 78.3% relative gains on Llama‑3.2‑3B‑Instruct.
By Guanlan Yue, Hang Yu, Xiaoyong Huang, Ruipeng Li, Wei Zhang, Bingchang Liu, Rui Wang
The paper investigates how agentic systems decide between acting and abstaining, focusing on the fidelity of their reasoning explanations. Using Qwen3‑8B in a multi‑party conversation setting, the authors compare direct decision policies, reasoning policies, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning, finding a trade‑off: strong direct policies yield higher performance but no traceable reasoning, while reasoning policies provide an audit trail at the cost of lower recall. The study also uncovers that exposing reasoning can alter the agent’s policy and that common faithfulness metrics may overstate the alignment between reasoning and decisions.
By Shreya Mendi, Brinnae Bent