What happens to an LLM agent's tool choice when the reliable tool silently changes within an ongoing session? We borrow set-shifting from cognitive psychology to study how well agents adapt to hidden reliability shifts.
arXiv:2608. 05013v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly applied to open-ended everyday requests that span work, study, and life.
By Jingsheng Zheng, Xinyuan Fang, Jintian Zhang, Zhengke Gui, Huajun Chen, Ningyu Zhang
arXiv:2510. 19771v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-based agents are increasingly moving towards proactivity: rather than awaiting instruction, they exercise agency to anticipate user needs and solve them autonomously.
By Gil Pasternak, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Julia White, Dhruv Atreja, Matthew Thomas, George Hurn-Maloney, Ash Lewis
Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged. We show that this harness can change the agent's multi-step beliefs even when the task, environment, and base LLM are fixed.
arXiv:2607. 10059v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.
By Xun Liu, Yi Evie Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran
arXiv:2606. 05922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents rely on a harness of skills, tools, and workflows to solve complex problems.
By Wenbo Pan, Shujie Liu, Chin-Yew Lin, Jingying Zeng, Xianfeng Tang, Xiangyang Zhou, Yan Lu, Xiaohua Jia