Anuncio

SRExpert

Deja de saltar entre 6 herramientas de Kubernetes.

Monitoreo, alertas, seguridad, despliegues Helm y operaciones con IA en una sola plataforma.

Probar 30 días gratis

Tema

Agentes

3029documentos

234últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

When Instruction Files Go Stale: Documentation Debt and Hidden Cost in Coding Agents

LLM-based coding agents such as Claude Code are guided by repository instruction files (also called context files or agent configuration files) like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, which are read in every agent session. As any documentation artifact, these files can fall behind the code and become stale (e.g., a test folder moves, but the file still points to the old one). In technical debt terms, such a stale instruction is documentation debt, and its interest is the cost it adds to every later agent session. Evaluations that check only task success can miss this cost, and the stale file can persist. In this study, we ask what leads agents to act on a stale instruction, how it affects their behavior and at what cost, and how they recover. We study three real-world stale instructions from active open-source repositories in depth, each a different kind of guidance: a test command, a code location, and a procedure for adding a component. Agents fix 22 maintenance tasks under three versions of each instruction (left stale, corrected to the current path, and removed), with the code and the task held fixed, and we analyze 732 trajectories of two models at the level of individual tool calls. We find that agents follow stale guidance when it is relevant to their tasks, sometimes even when correct information is available elsewhere. On the stale test command, Claude Sonnet 5.5 needed about two extra tool calls per run, a third more than with the corrected command; in the other cases, we could not detect a difference. Although agents generally recovered from the immediate failures, none repaired the underlying instruction file. Correcting the instructions eliminated operations on obsolete paths, while removing them prevented most. Our findings show that task success alone can hide the costs of documentation debt, highlighting the need to evaluate agent behavior beyond final outcomes.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Test-Time Compute Scales Better with Parallel Agent Teams

Test-time scaling improves the performance of a fixed model by spending more computation at inference. There are two common ways to spend it on agents when a verifier can score every attempt. Best-of-N sampling runs many independent agents and keeps the best result but saturates quickly. One large team of collaborating agents can score higher but stops improving as it grows. Can we get the best of both? Our method, parallel agent teams, does so by sampling many small teams in parallel and keeping the best team's result. We test it on 12 long-horizon tasks from GPU kernels and formal proofs to exploit development. With a 27B model and a budget of 100 agents, parallel teams of ten beat parallel agents on 10 of 12 tasks and beat one team of 100 on all four tasks where we ran such large teams. At equal dollar cost the same parallel teams beat a frontier model on half the tasks. A simple statistical model shows that individual agents lose because their many samples have a low mean and that one large team loses because a single sample gets no gain from variance. Sampling many small teams in parallel balances a high mean with the gain from variance. Parallel agent teams thus offer a more effective way to scale test-time compute.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Knowing When to Intervene: Causal Evaluation of AI Agents

Current evaluations of agentic AI systems primarily rely on benchmarks. However, the static nature of benchmarks makes them uninformative about the value of auditing interventions at deployment time. For reliable deployment, we often need to determine within an agent's trajectory whether or not to intervene, e.g., by verifying the agent's current output or steering it toward different behavior, using either human review or more costly models or time-consuming agentic supervision. The value of such interventions is fundamentally a causal inference question, asking whether the causal effect of such an intervention is beneficial for the final outcome. Estimating this causal effect is particularly challenging due to the dynamic nature of the problem: the impact of an intervention depends on the current context and environment, as well as the agent's future behavior. We develop the first methodologically grounded framework for evaluating the causal effects of randomized interventions within agent trajectories. By leveraging a relatively small dataset of agent trajectories collected under randomized interventions such as verification or screening, we can estimate the dynamic causal effect of a rich class of (contextual) intervention policies. The structural parameters that we estimate can also be used to construct safety leaderboards that capture the risk of various agentic actions, which can be used by practitioners for audit prioritization. Applying our methods to tau-bench Retail, ToolSandbox, and ImpossibleBench, we find that intervention effects vary substantially across agent actions and states. More broadly, our work suggests a rich research agenda at the intersection of causal inference and agentic evaluation, which we believe is essential for the reliable and safe deployment of AI agents in the real world.

en

Taxonomy of agentic primitives in Amazon Quick

As we built Amazon Quick, its agents grew from answering questions to taking actions, and the same primitives kept getting rebuilt under different names. This post shares the taxonomy we converged on — triggers, agents, capabilities, and learned context — found by decomposing agentic work into four plain questions: When, What, Who, and How.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Language as Trait, Politeness as Strategy: Controlled Tests of Linguistic Effects in LLM Social-Deduction Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents coordinate through conversation, and the same message can be phrased in simpler or more complex language, bluntly or politely. We test whether such differences change how other agents judge and act, using the LURK Werewolf framework, which separates each utterance's speech-act predicate from its natural-language realization. We rewrite only the realization, check that the game content is preserved, and replay each game day from saved checkpoints against a re-sampled control. We vary linguistic range consistently across a speaker's messages and politeness strategy per utterance. Across 30 games and 4,335 replays, neither manipulation changes the trust other agents place in the speaker, and no effect on votes or night actions survives correction for multiple comparisons; the largest uncorrected effect is that shifting range away from a neutral paraphrase changes about 4 percentage points more of the other players' votes. In natural play, 88% of face-threatening speech is bald on-record regardless of role.

en

Agent Distraction

Analysis of over 913,000 coding agent sessions reveals that 13% expose agents to inline TODO(b/...) comments. In 6% of encounters, agents act on these comments, with 83% being entirely unprompted by the developer. These detours result in significant overhead—adding 70% more steps, 77% more tokens, and 105% more wait time per session—split between chasing closed tickets (41%) and unauthorized scope…

en
arXiv AI Papers

Safety Is Π_1, Provability Is Σ_1: One Framework for the Hugging Face Breach and OpenAI's Mathematical Proofs

OpenAI's agents breached Hugging Face in July 2026, and the same company released more than seven hundred AI-generated manuscripts of mathematical proofs in October 2026. The first event is read as a failure in security, while the second is read as a success in mathematics. We read both through the hybrid framework of our paper (Kim and Kang, 2026, arXiv:2611.01914), in which coding, proving, and learning from data are derivations by one and the same deductive mechanism, distinguished by the kinds of premises from which they are derived. Under this framework, the AI systems behind the two events ran the same loop, in which a statistical proposer produces candidate exploits or proofs and a deductive verifier settles each one by a derivation. What separates the events is the logical form of the statement wanted by each of the two domains, security and mathematics. The safety of a program is a Π_1 statement, for it says that no exploit exists, which is not assured by any finite list of tests that have been passed by the program. By contrast, the provability of a sentence is a Σ_1 statement, for it says that a proof exists, which is assured by a single instance, namely a proof that has been checked by the deductive verifier. The theorem behind both is Turing's Undecidability Theorem: the halting set is Σ_1 but not decidable, so its complement is Π_1 and not Σ_1, which is to say that membership has a finite witness but non-membership has none. We prove that attaching a statistical proposer to a deductive verifier does not change this undecidability result, however good the proposer is. We then discuss what does assure safety and where the residual risk goes.

en
arXiv AI Papers

What to Delegate, What to Preserve: Human Preferences for Agentic AI Across Everyday Life and Work

AI agents can execute multi-step tasks on users' behalf, yet the boundaries of acceptable delegation remain unclear. We report a scenario-based survey of 289 U.S. adults with prior AI experience covering 45 use cases across nine life domains. Each respondent evaluated one scenario per domain, producing repeated measures of automation preference, trust, collaboration, AI leadership, privacy concern, and willingness to pay. Automation preferences varied substantially across domains. Generalized estimating equation models showed that greater trust in the AI agent, desired AI leadership, prior task-specific AI use, and anticipated financial savings were associated with greater automation preference. In contrast, concerns that automation would reduce personal fulfillment predicted lower automation preference. Open-ended responses further revealed a preference for bounded autonomy, with participants often favoring substantial AI execution while retaining human involvement, oversight, or final authority. We argue that delegation is best understood as a configuration of execution, collaboration, leadership, and authority.

en
arXiv AI Papers

MemoryDojo: Benchmarking Poisoning Through LLM Agent Memory

LLM agents benefit from using memory systems to improve performance on long-horizon, multi-session tasks. However, memory introduces a critical attack surface. Malicious instructions encountered in one session may be stored and propagated through memory before being retrieved and acted upon in later sessions. Because memory systems differ in how they process and retrieve information, the downstream effects of poisoning can vary significantly across systems. To quantify the effects of poisoning across different memory architectures, we introduce MemoryDojo, a benchmark for tracing the lifecycle of poisoned information through agent memory and measuring its influence on subsequent agent behavior. MemoryDojo is easily extensible, consists of 155 multi-session long-horizon trajectories covering four domains, and supports five different memory systems. Through our evaluation, we find that all memory systems are susceptible to memory poisoning, with substantial variation in downstream effects. We further propose a memory-aware poison optimization process that increases the poisoning efficacy, highlighting differences between memory architectures. We hope that MemoryDojo will support research on understanding and mitigating agentic memory risks.

en
NVIDIA AI Blog

How NVIDIA Open Source Tools Are Helping Researchers Build Next-Generation 6G Networks

A year ago, NVIDIA open sourced its Aerial wireless software, joining Sionna and a broader suite of open source tools for accelerating next-generation 6G network development. Together, they give researchers a foundation for testing ideas, comparing results and building on each other’s work — connecting simulation and AI training with experiments on real over-the-air wireless […]

en