arXiv AI By Shuyang Zhang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University), Jianshuo Chang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The article reviews how replacing components in language‑model agents affects execution trajectories and downstream outcomes. It maps 348 studies, analyzes 90 comparison records, and finds that while many studies report both local decision metrics and task endpoints, they rarely demonstrate matched comparisons or prove that improved local decisions drive task‑level gains. The review identifies three potential mechanisms—recovery and disruption, intervention timing, and downstream use—and proposes eight claim‑specific reporting items to clarify evidence quality.

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 AI
23h ago

NAQD Env: A benchmark for selective withdrawal in language agents

The paper introduces NAQD‑Env, a synthetic benchmark designed to test language agents’ ability to selectively withdraw and resume actions when new evidence, permissions, or stop instructions arise. It evaluates models against a deterministic reference policy across eleven dependency families, measuring policy agreement, task value, withdrawal, resumption, and event reporting. Experiments on 350 scenarios show low withdrawal recall, no valid resumption, and limited policy alignment, highlighting the need to treat selective withdrawal as a distinct reliability component.

By Mohamed Abouzahra
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistency

The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.

By Nikol Figalov\'a, Lynn Huestegge, Anne B\"ockler-Raettig
arXiv Machine Learning
1d 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