arXiv:2606. 02326v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hard constraints are usually treated as terminal vetoes: once a candidate violates a requirement, the learned rule rejects it and any repair is handled outside the decision semantics.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 08020v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hard-constraint decision systems usually veto infeasible candidates.
arXiv:2607. 00269v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair.
arXiv:2608. 04552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers.
arXiv:2607. 18724v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Text-to-image (T2I) generators often fail to follow their prompts faithfully, producing wrong counts, swapped attributes, ambiguous relations, and illegible text.
Translating natural-language planning intent into verified plans is a longstanding challenge: people communicate goals in language, while classical planners require formal PDDL specifications. Recent agentic frameworks bridge this gap by orchestrating a pool of specialized repair agents inside a verifier-checked refinement loop, but the orchestrator at the centre is itself a prompted frontier LLM, paying a frontier-LLM API call at every refinement step.
arXiv:2608. 12321v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a salient surface cue competes with an implicit feasibility constraint, LLMs often fail -- but aggregate accuracy conflates genuine constraint inference with conservative defaulting.