41 stories
Memory poisoning attacks on LLM agents typically assume an external adversary who plants content in the agent's persistent memory to steer its behavior.
Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are commonly implemented as an LLM in a loop with Planning, Memory, Tools, and Control Flow. This application-focused view connects agentic LLM research with deployable systems and leaves open how such systems should be evaluated beyond end-to-end task…
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) relies on evaluation feedback to assess progress and guide further research, yet repeatedly running complex benchmarks is costly and slows iteration. Human experts reduce this cost by selecting benchmark subsets or designing compact suites.
Financial LLM agents are often evaluated by comparing their end-to-end returns with those of a baseline and testing the paired difference against zero. This measures whether deploying the agent changes realized performance, but it does not isolate event-selection skill.
AI agents are becoming increasingly capable of generating scientific code, but generating code is not the same as improving the algorithms behind it. For numerical solvers, execution feedback can expose poor performance, but rarely reveals its underlying cause and how to address it.
Executable Agent Skills combine natural-language instructions and scripts into reusable packages for LLM agents, and revising them requires fixing errors without breaking correct behavior.
A deployed LLM agent emits tool calls, queries, and code that can be silently wrong -- by the time the error surfaces, the action has run. Frontier chat APIs hide the model's token probabilities; the agent's stated confidence barely beats chance on the mistakes that matter; and resampling does not…
Agent harnesses make many small, typed decisions per task: which model to call, which tool to use, whether retrieved text is relevant, whether an input carries an injection.
ReAct-based agents typically rely on a single LLM policy to propose actions, interact with the environment, and decide when a task is complete. This coupling makes action authorization and completion control difficult to enforce independently, allowing errors to propagate and unsupported completion…
LLM agents increasingly act through modular systems, such as order, payment, inventory, and shipment services, where actions in one module change which transitions are valid in another.
Large language model agents rely on external harnesses to pass information between the model and its environment and to recover from execution errors. Yet recovery is usually judged only by average task success. This hides an important tension.
Scientific coding agents receive equations, boundary conditions, and output requirements in writing, then must assess the programs they revise. Rules to Tools (R2T) supplies prepared executable checks of public scientific requirements.
LLM agents generate intermediate reasoning and actions token by token, making extended interactions slow and computationally expensive. Jev-style models offer fast probabilistic predictions over finite fields, but require those fields to be specified in advance.
People are increasingly delegating tasks to AI agents, and those agents are increasingly encountering other people's agents over shared resources such as a codebase, a calendar, or a budget.
Resource limits are becoming an authorization boundary for AI agents that delegate work across concurrent and failure-prone workers. Parent-child allocation constraints, affine objects, and distributed escrow do not by themselves prevent overspend when replies are lost, effects complete after…
Large-language-model agents can propose and execute actions, but proposal, authority, dispatch, verified external effect, and serving promotion are different claims.
We present AREX-2, an effort to advance the self-improving capability of LLM agents, which we define as the ability to iteratively refine a solution at test time.
Large language models (LLMs) can influence people's beliefs, yet little is known about whether and how they can manipulate each other. To investigate this, we simulate conversations between two agents: a target LLM that role-plays a human persona based on demographic and psychological attributes,…
Showing 36 of 41 stories
Load more storiesGet the top AI news and tools straight to your inbox every week.
Weekly · AI news from arXiv - cs.AI
Join 15,000+ AI enthusiasts
