arXiv AI By Barada Sahu (Cabal AI), Shivesh Pandey (Para AI)

Teach it to stop, not just to click

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 17136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead.

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 Machine Learning
Aug 11

Quality-Diversity Stress Tests for Process Reward Models:What Archive Coverage Can and Cannot Certify

arXiv:2608. 08008v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) score intermediate reasoning steps and are widely used for search, ranking, and training, but optimization can exploit these learned proxies by increasing reward while turning correct reasoning into incorrect reasoning.

By Ibne Farabi Shihab, Fariya Afrin
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Anatomy of a Closed-Loop Collapse: A Causal Case Study of a Compressed VLA Policy

The paper presents a causal analysis of a compressed VLA policy that performs well in offline tests but fails in closed‑loop execution on a simulated pick‑and‑place task. An 8‑layer distillation of Octo‑Base retains most parameters and passes all offline metrics, yet collapses during deployment, with early stages degrading gradually and final transport failing entirely. The failure is traced to a negative, late‑heavy residual in the action trace, and standard remedies (continued training, offline data, command‑level compensation, clamping) do not restore performance; only a minimal‑pair intervention that mixes deployment‑distribution rollouts with teacher data restores parity with the teacher. whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that offline validation metrics alone are insufficient to guarantee closed‑loop success for compressed policies, highlighting the need for targeted deployment‑time testing and interventions."

By Fengze Jia (The Ohio State University)
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

Frozen Judges, Moving Agents: Version-Dependent LLM-Judge Error and the Limits of Judge-Assisted Agent Evaluation

The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.

By Jiapeng Li