overfeed.news
Anuncio

NexTalk

Automatiza la primera respuesta. Mantén el toque humano.

Chat en vivo con agentes de IA en tu modelo y tu clave de API, con traspaso a tu equipo.

Empezar gratis

Tema

Agentes

3059documentos

252últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

ParanoiaEval: Benchmarking Unnecessary Defensive Work in Agentic Coding

As coding agents increasingly undertake real-world work autonomously, judging whether their risk treatments are warranted has become important. Existing work evaluates related agent behaviors from separate perspectives, but lacks a systematic framework for unifying these behaviors. To bridge this gap, we introduce ParanoiaEval, the first benchmark for unified evaluation of risk-treatment capabilities in coding agents. Grounded in the well-established Avoidance-Transfer-Mitigation-Acceptance framework in software engineering risk management, ParanoiaEval operationalizes its 4 fundamental treatments for coding-agent settings and contains 200 evidence-controlled repository-level task pairs, each differing only in treatment-defining evidence. We further introduce dedicated metrics for risk-treatment violations and evidence responsiveness, using a human-calibrated agentic judge for reliable evaluation. Large-scale experiments on 8 representative models and a post-hoc human study reveal that (I) unnecessary risk treatment occurs in 11.2%-58.7% of runs despite explicit evidence, with substantial variation across agent configurations; (II) stronger task capability does not ensure more appropriate risk treatment, while treatment violations substantially harm developers' experience, establishing risk treatment as an independent capability dimension; and (III) agents exhibit systematic patterns consistent with established risk-management findings, suggesting that knowledge from human practice can guide the diagnosis and improvement of this capability.

en
arXiv AI Papers

A Case Study in Assuring AI-Written Software

Software-engineering agents can enable people without formal software training to build systems they could not otherwise implement and simultaneously can produce more code than even experts can meaningfully inspect. In both cases, exhaustive code review is not reliable as the sole basis for human control. We report a case study of a production healthcare platform built through coding agents and governed by an operator without formal software-engineering training. Over time, its workflow grew into a human-led meta-agent system where one agent wrote code, other agents supervised and reviewed it, and project rules carried lessons forward. The operator found that tests, monitors and reviewing agents used to supervise the system were fallible. Some monitors measured proxies rather than outcomes, some audits failed silently, missing checks disappeared from reported results and one automated repair caused operational disruption. In this case, human control depended on keeping the intended outcome, the evidence used to judge it, the agents' permissions and the final human decision were all tied to the same underlying objective.

en
arXiv AI Papers

SquidAgent: Parallelize Wisely, Coordinate Efficiently

LLM-based agents solve complex multi-step tasks, but sequential execution incurs substantial latency. In principle, parallelizing work across multiple agents should yield near-linear speedups. Yet existing parallel multi-agent systems often run slower than a single-agent baseline. We attribute this gap to two hidden costs that parallel execution incurs but a serial agent avoids. First, there is a re-exploration cost: redundant effort spent by parallel workers reconstructing context that the orchestrator already possesses, such as prior decisions, that would otherwise be inherited implicitly in a serial execution. Second, there is an alignment cost: the overhead required to reconcile inconsistencies across independently generated outputs. We thus derive a principled decision criterion: a layer should be parallelized only when its critical-path cost, plus re-exploration and alignment overheads, is lower than the corresponding serial cost. While this criterion is naturally expressed in wall-clock time, we observe that LLMs are poorly calibrated when asked to estimate task duration. To address this, we instead measure cost in predicted output tokens, which we empirically find LLMs can estimate substantially more reliably than wall-clock time. Building on this token-based criterion, we propose SquidAgent. It estimates all token budgets in a single planning step, forks each worker directly from the orchestrator's session to eliminate re-exploration cost, and replaces post-hoc reconciliation with a pre-generated shared convention block that converts alignment into a bounded upfront cost. A deterministic scheduler then applies the criterion layer by layer. Empirically, SquidAgent achieves a 2.2mean throughput improvement and a 2.6mean wall-time speedup over Claude Code, and a 2.0throughput improvement over the strongest multi-agent baseline.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Towards In-Parameter Memory Augmentation for Large Language Models

Recently Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents increasingly need to incorporate knowledge acquired after pretraining, e.g., domain facts, user preferences, documents, and interaction experience. In-context learning (ICL) and ICL-based agent harness remain flexible, but they consume context capacity and incur repeated discretized encoding cost that grows with context length. In-parameter memory offers a complementary substrate: reusable memory information is represented in model parameters, adapters, or other parameter-like objects that are composed into the forward pass at inference time. This survey focuses on methods that augment LLMs with such parametric memory at deployment: a memory-bearing parameter object is plugged into the forward pass during inference, whether it is acquired before or during deployment. We organize the landscape with two orthogonal axes: Parameter Placement, which includes Embedding, Attention, FFN layers, or Hybrid when two or more layers are used; and Parameter Acquisition Time, which distinguishes methods whose memory object is acquired during deployment (online) from those acquired before it (offline). We clarify boundaries, conduct comparisons, and discuss open directions in interference, safety, co-design with ICL, and recursive self-improvement.

en
Microsoft Research

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research .

en
NVIDIA AI Blog

Why Telecom Operators Are Building Their AI Strategy on Open Models

Telecom operators are increasingly building their AI strategies on open models — and the reasons go beyond mere cost. Open models give telcos the ability to trust, control and customize AI across their most critical workloads — from autonomous networks to customer care. NVIDIA’s latest State of AI in Telecommunications report reflects this shift, with […]

en
arXiv AI Papers

Partially Observable Zero-shot coordination by Predicting Intention of Partner

Zero-shot coordination in embodied settings requires acting while the partner is intermittently out of view, leaving existing methods with ambiguous partner representations and uncertainty over hidden partner states. We propose Predicting Intention of Partner (PIP) to jointly address these challenges. PIP uses a Joint-view VAE to distill richer training-time evidence from the union of both agents' local observations into a partner representation available from local observations alone. Partner-state Belief networks further infer the partner's hidden location and behavioral tendencies from the ego agent's interaction history. We evaluate PIP in Burrito-PO, Overcooked-PO, and a Melting Pot substrate, together with a human evaluation in Burrito-PO. PIP attains the highest mean performance among the compared methods across all three benchmarks. Human evaluation and diagnostic analyses further support coordination with unseen partners and the contributions of both components under partner occlusion.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Test-Time Agent Evolution for Long-Horizon Legal Reasoning

Legal intelligence aims to support reliable decision-making across long-horizon legal processes involving evolving case states and multiple roles. However, real-world legal deployment exhibits substantial case heterogeneity in facts, evidence, and procedural contexts, exposing the limitations of static agent strategies. Moreover, legal reasoning is inherently interdependent across roles and procedural stages, making global reliability fundamentally different from isolated role competence. To address these challenges, we study training-free test-time agent adaptation, where agents continuously exploit deployment-time signals from preceding cases and ongoing interactions without updating model parameters. We propose , which introduces Test-Time Memory Evolution to retrieve reusable experience from previous cases, adapt it to the current factual and procedural context, and consolidate accumulated experience for subsequent decision-making. Further, Rubric-Aligned Collaboration verifies and revises role-specific actions according to behavioral and procedural requirements, enabling coordinated decision-making across roles and stages. Extensive experiments on J1-EVAL and LegalWorld across five backbone models demonstrate consistent improvements over representative reasoning and agent baselines with reasonable interaction and computational costs. Ablation and case studies further show that the two components provide complementary benefits in experience adaptation and cross-role coordination, improving the reliability and efficiency of long-horizon legal reasoning.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Conversation Is a Two-Body Problem: Dyadic Evaluation of Full-Duplex Dialogue Models

Full-duplex spoken dialogue models listen and speak at the same time, enabling voice agents to have natural, low-latency interactions that turn-based systems cannot offer. However, they are commonly evaluated against single-sided interlocutors: pre-recorded audio that cannot react, or an automated examiner that reacts in real time but only administers a fixed sequence of tests and is never graded. These single-sided frameworks evaluate only half of a two-body problem, where turn-taking, overlap, and interruption are joint products of two coupled speakers. We propose DyaFDB, a framework that evaluates full-duplex models in a dyadic setup: two models converse directly under assigned roles with cooperative or conflicting goals, and both sides are scored offline with an external judge. DyaFDB probes how the two models behave toward each other, such as how they take turns or carry an assigned role under different interests. We instantiate four tasks as 140 scenarios and record 7,560 conversations, covering six self- and cross-play pairings. Throughout the experiments, we observe that how a model behaves continually reshapes its partner. We thus demonstrate that each model must be both the examiner and examinee of the other, and no single fixed interlocutor can play both parts. We will release the scenarios, role prompts, and recording protocols between two full-duplex models, without any pre-recorded audio.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Beyond Waypoint Regression: Query-Based Cost Learning over Reachable Ego Futures for End-to-End Driving

End-to-end planners based on waypoint regression achieve strong open-loop accuracy, but they primarily learn to mimic expert geometry and remain difficult to adapt to deployment-time safety constraints. We propose a query-based cost-learning framework that estimates bounded costs for dynamically reachable ego trajectory queries, rather than dense BEV cells or a small regressed trajectory set. Compact joint scene tokens capture coherent multimodal agent futures, while contingency-aware cost aggregation and cost-guided intra-cluster MPPI mixing convert the learned cost topology into feasible ego plans. On nuScenes, our method improves over prior cost-estimation planners such as ST-P3 and NMP, outperforms most regression baselines in collision rate, while remaining competitive in L2, and retaining an interpretable cost interface. On real-world driving logs, the proposed planner reduces collision rates compared with SparseDrive and Alpamayo without fine-tuning, while maintaining a diverse set of candidate trajectories.

en
arXiv AI Papers

ChartBmkAgent: Harness-Governed Multi-Agent Construction of Chart QA Benchmarks from Sparse Error-Taxonomy Specifications

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) advance rapidly, while conventional benchmark development lags behind, delaying investigation of newly observed capability gaps. Such investigation requires an expressive task format and an on-demand construction process: information-rich charts make chart question answering (Chart QA) suitable for probing coupled perception and reasoning. Automated Chart QA construction is intended to shorten the benchmark-development cycle by turning identified gaps into targeted samples on demand. Current methods, however, commonly separate target guidance from scratch generation: target-guided systems often require prepared data, charts, or templates, while scratch-generation systems primarily ensure artifact validity, without explicitly controlling whether newly synthesized requirements and content remain aligned with an externally specified diagnostic target. We introduce ChartBmkAgent, which turns an identified capability gap into targeted diagnostic evidence by constructing complete Chart QA samples from sparse error-taxonomy specifications. Throughout construction, a central harness governs specialized agents, requires stage-specific evidence of alignment with the original error category, and records the basis for each acceptance decision. On 300 taxonomy-wide samples, MLLM accuracies ranged from 32.7% to 84.3% with distinct category profiles, showing that generated samples reveal capability differences. Across three source-model comparisons, targeted follow-ups scored 50.0% versus 82.2% on matched controls (p=8.9610^{-6}); all six cross-model comparisons had the same direction, demonstrating targeted validation and diagnostic-data generation. Multiple evaluator models assessed whether each sample tested its specified error category; 86.4% met this criterion, providing empirical evidence of target preservation.

en
arXiv AI Papers

DSV-Mem: Evaluating Multimodal Memory in Professional Workflows for MLLM Agents

Conversational MLLM agents are increasingly expected to assist in professional workflows, from AI research and engineering design to product management and business operations. Yet this capability remains underexplored: existing benchmarks largely focus on informal, everyday interactions and personal-life scenarios featuring photographic natural images, isolated static artifacts, and recall-oriented questions. In contrast, professional scenarios often involve structured, information-heavy artifacts that undergo frequent revisions and authority updates, and compositional queries requiring reconciliation of many artifact versions while tracking state precisely. To address these challenges, we introduce DSV-Mem, a benchmark for evaluating Dense Stateful Visual Memory. DSV-Mem comprises expert-reviewed scenarios and 1,000 questions across five user-oriented categories (Current State, Past State, Derived State, Change History, and Conflict/Refusal). A Hartley-inspired criterion favors questions with broader visual-evidence inspection demands. We also introduce a generation harness that produces evaluation suites by decoupling state-transition synthesis from conversation filling. Evaluation over 27 configurations spanning frontier and open-weight models and memory management methods reveals that the strongest baseline scores below 45% on DSV-Mem. Analysis surfaces findings: 1) multimodality and information density both contribute to difficulty, but state evolution, particularly the number of governing updates, is the dominant tested factor. Raw conversation/haystack length, OCR, and arithmetic are not the primary bottlenecks; 2) models often fail to verify user premises against prior state updates before answering; 3) increased reasoning effort and memory management methods yield limited gains, whereas state-aware designs prove more effective. The benchmark and code will be publicly released.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Beyond Corrected Memory: Execution Consistency in Multi-Agent Systems

Shared memory coordinates agents' actions, but correct records do not establish that those actions satisfy task requirements. Memory governance and failure diagnosis regulate or inspect recorded information; they do not by themselves establish whether it is sufficient to judge task duties. We define execution consistency through duties governing state use, information handoffs, and final-state agreement, with explicit evidence conditions for judging fulfillment. Our core claim is that identical retained records can correspond to compliant and violating executions under the same task rule. Controlled removal of evidence such as receipt, action dependence, or response validity leaves 82.4% of opposite-label pairs indistinguishable; restoration separates 97.9% of the merged pairs. Natural-log annotations identify the defined violations in actual executions. However, existing logs do not always explicitly represent the execution relationships needed for these judgments. To assess the definition's practical value, we use CAVERT, a framework for consistency diagnosis and recovery, to extract supported relationships from logs and apply these criteria. It consistently outperforms contract-prompted LLM and rule-based baselines in diagnosis across all 12 benchmark-executor settings. Under the same gate and executor limits, it also outperforms rule-guided recovery in all four evaluated environments. These findings identify execution evidence that agent-memory and execution interfaces should preserve for reliable judgment.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Surviving the Router: Optimizing Skill Injections for Retrieval and Execution

AI agents increasingly rely on modular third-party "skills" that are dynamically selected by skill routers to execute complex tasks. While recent studies highlight the threat of prompt injections embedded in these skills, existing evaluations often assume settings where the malicious skill is already selected for execution. We show that this assumption can substantially overestimate attack success. In realistic multi-skill environments, injected skills must first compete for retrieval, reducing the effective attack success rate (ASR) of existing injections by 87-97%. To address this limitation, we introduce CORSA (Cluster Optimization for Router-Aware Skill Attacks), a router-aware attack that optimizes skill injections for both retrieval and execution across clusters of related tasks. We evaluate skill injection attacks under router-managed multi-skill settings by extending the benchmark introduced by SkillRouter with eight malicious payload categories. CORSA uses successive optimization stages to first improve retrieval and then optimize end-to-end attack success, while we evaluate user utility and injection naturalism separately. Our experiments show that CORSA substantially improves both retrieval and end-to-end attack success over existing skill injections while preserving user utility, and that the resulting attacks transfer across different router architectures and LLM backbones.

en
arXiv AI Papers

When Tools Lie: Reliability of Mathematical Agents Under Corrupted Tool Feedback

Mathematical problem solving often requires deterministic computational steps that agents delegate to tools and implicitly trust. Yet tools can fail silently, returning plausible but incorrect results. How well can agents detect and correct corrupted tool call outputs? We study this through a controlled corruption framework where a hidden interceptor replaces tool call results with plausible incorrect information on targeted problems. We evaluate agents across 31 problems under four verification designs including no verification (baseline), mandatory same-context reflection, optional fresh-context verification, and optional structural verification. Without verification, corruption causes dramatic accuracy loss, from 100% down to 72.4%. Mandatory reflection fully recovers this performance to 100%. Optional verification improves accuracy only when models actively invoke it. Our results show that checking frequency is strongly associated with robustness differences, while unequal invocation prevents a controlled comparison of verifier quality. A supporting recovery experiment shows that full problem restart succeeds in 100% of cases after explicit detection. These findings demonstrate that verifier availability and verification policy are separate components of mathematical-agent reliability. Mandatory policies enforce verification while optional policies depend on the model's own choice to invoke it.

en
arXiv AI Papers

POLAR: Ontology-Guided Risk Prevention for Tool-Calling LLM Agents

LLM tool-use agents operate in dynamic environments where many actions carry operational risk. However, most safety mechanisms react only after errors manifest. Existing pre-emptive approaches either fine-tune the agent on chain-of-thought deliberation or compile natural-language guardrails into runtime checks, but they do so without exposing a structural, auditable verdict. We propose POLAR, a guardrail framework for small tool-calling agents that assesses reversibility through a structured two-layer ontology. POLAR assigns each action a graded reversibility score by deriving a candidate inverse sequence; calls failing a threshold are pruned before execution. Evaluated on τ^2-bench across six agent models, POLAR improves mean task reward by 0.11 to 0.18 points on airline for four of six agents, but only eight of eighteen model--domain cells improve overall; retail and stronger agents often regress. POLAR provides an auditable structural check and characterizes its task-utility trade-offs. Reward is not a direct measure of prevented harm.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Self-Retrospection Distillation: Turning Post-hoc Experiences into Prior Foresight

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) turns agent experience into learning signals primarily through scalar outcome rewards after interaction. For group-relative objectives, however, this signal vanishes when all rollouts receive the same reward, even though their trajectories may reveal useful information about what the task requires and how the agent fails. We ask a complementary question: can hindsight teach an agent what it could have anticipated before acting? We introduce prospective learning, which uses post-hoc experience to supervise foresight predictions from the pre-interaction view, and instantiate it with Self-Retrospection Distillation (SRD). Intuitively, a completed trajectory reveals knowledge that would have been useful and pitfalls that should be avoided; SRD distills this privileged hindsight into trajectory-blind foresight of the same policy. Foresight serves only as a training target and need not be explicitly generated at inference time. Across 10 tool-integrated reasoning and long-horizon agentic tasks, SRD complements RLVR and self-distillation baselines with gains of up to 24.2 pp. Its advantage is especially pronounced when reward contrast is scarce: when 37--98\% of rollout groups are reward-uniform across model scales, yet SRD can still exploit learning signal from sampled trajectories. In the 2B setting, where 98\% of groups are all-failure, the RLVR training ends up at 0.0\% success, while adding SRD reaches 60.6\% under the same rollout budget. Our results suggest that post-hoc agent experience is useful not only for evaluating or improving behavior, but also for shaping predictive representations before available interaction.

en