The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
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.
arXiv:2609.08618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark scores describe what a checkpoint can do now, but they do not determine how it will respond to the next training episode. We measure this mis...
The paper introduces the concept of intervention fidelity in latent world models, measuring whether a model’s open‑loop transitions align with actual environment interventions. Experiments on TD‑MPC2, Cheetah, and DreamerV3 show that high reward fit does not guarantee fidelity, and that self‑supervised models can outperform task‑anchored ones in preserving intervention effects. The authors propose a capture‑gated audit to localize failures and argue that fidelity must be directly audited on the model’s native interface.
The paper introduces Cros, a risk‑constrained stopping layer for sequential clinical diagnosis agents that determines when to stop testing and make a diagnosis. Cros combines state‑wise error ranking, policy design on disjoint development splits, and exact tests of selective diagnostic error to provide finite‑sample guarantees. On a MIMIC‑derived abdominal‑pain benchmark, Cros achieves higher state‑error AUROC and lower selective error rates compared to baseline stopping methods, though its performance varies across development resplits.
arXiv:2608. 07914v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Behavioral contamination detectors can return "no evidence" either because a benchmark is clean or because the audit has little power.
ObserverBench is a benchmark framework that evaluates whether internal mechanistic estimators—called observers—are suitable for guiding interventions, control, or safety actions in language models. It separates estimation accuracy from the loss incurred by the chosen action, demonstrating that accurate average estimates can still lead to poor decisions. Experiments on GPT‑2‑small, Qwen2.5‑7B, Gemma‑2‑9B‑it, and Qwen3.5‑9B show that observers trained on action loss tend to select lower‑loss actions, while traditional metrics like AUROC can rank monitors differently from deployment loss, highlighting the need for task‑specific evaluation.