3062
252
Anthropic says its newest AI models, Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1, address criticisms from customers about price, data retention, and overzealous safeguards. The company claims…
“We’re at an inflection point in cybersecurity,” Jensen Huang told a sold-out crowd at CrowdStrike’s Fal.Con 2026 in Las Vegas Tuesday. Attacks are now automated. Defense has to be, too. The NVIDIA founder and CEO joined CrowdStrike CEO and founder George Kurtz to announce CrowdStrike SafeMind, its agentic cybersecurity system developed by the CrowdStrike Cyber […]
After an unreleased OpenAI model wreaked enough havoc to make international headlines, OpenAI delayed the development of a different unreleased model suite, Astra, in order…
Claude Fable 5.1 is now available on Amazon Bedrock and Claude Platform on AWS. This post covers Claude Fable 5.1's improvements, the Enterprise Frontier Safeguards for keeping your data in a cloud environment you control, and how to start building with the model on Amazon Bedrock.
Depending on who you ask, developer platform Hugging Face was recently attacked by OpenAI - after it lost control of its own AI tools …
Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.
Dynamic agent harnesses let language models change the software that shapes their own execution. This flexibility brings a new reasoning burden: a local plugin change can propagate through dependencies and cleanup. We introduce CordisBench, a 1,200-question benchmark of this lifecycle reasoning. It combines a controlled formal setting with programs executed against Cordis, a runtime that manages component dependencies and cleanup, and asks models to identify affected components, predict state after a specified teardown order, determine which conditions hold under all or some orders, and choose reconfigurations that succeed when executed. Across these tasks, we evaluate three efficiency-oriented models at low reasoning effort with 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, or 32 relevant interactions, using deterministic task-specific scoring. Models usually handle small systems well but grow less reliable as more interactions become relevant, especially when predicting final state and when reasoning across teardown orders. Additional inference effort recovers marked gains for some models. The cost is nontrivial: on our 16-interaction subset, GPT-5.6 Luna uses nearly 3,000 reasoning tokens per question at medium effort. For these controlled instances, that cost is avoidable: an independent finite reference semantics agrees with Cordis execution on every observation and action outcome used for scoring across all 528 executable questions.
Natural language is emerging as a primary feedback channel for improving language agents, capable of conveying intent, preferences, and causal structure in forms interpretable by both humans and modern language models. We call this paradigm Verbal Reinforcement Learning (VRL) and offer the first unified account of it. We organize the field around a single axis, when verbal feedback takes effect in an agent's lifecycle and what it modifies, yielding three pillars: (1) Language as Grounding Signal, where language defines the task itself by specifying goals, states, and reward structures; (2) Language as Deliberative Feedback, where natural language guides reasoning at test time without the need to update model parameters; (3) Language as Learning Signal, where language-based feedback shapes model parameters through training. Within each pillar, we synthesize representative work, distinguish key subcategories of approaches, and outline the distinct role language plays in shaping agent behavior. Together, this taxonomy shows how verbal reinforcement is reshaping agent development, while also defining the challenges and opportunities for building more capable and aligned agents.
We develop a framework for mechanism design with AI agents whose alignment (preferences) and capabilities (feasible actions and information) are unknown. We want such agents to act on our behalf so mechanisms must incentivize both honesty and obedience. A one-sided imitation structure---capabilities can be concealed but not counterfeited---yields a revelation principle, a characterization of implementable policies via nested cyclical monotonicity, and conditions under which eliciting higher-order beliefs can discipline multiple agents. We apply our framework to stylized examples of (i) sandbagging in which a more capable agent pretends to be less capable; (ii) an alignment--interpretability trade-off, where the two are substitutes in the instrument but complements in value; (iii) discipline via peer scoring; (iv) coupling rewards to induce competition among multiple agents; and (v) scalable oversight and reward shaping.
Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promises to provide the right support at the right time, yet existing proactive tools largely focus on generic textual assistance, such as autocomplete. This paper studies the design space of proactive thought partners: AI agents that proactively offer customizable, higher-level cognitive support during writing. We instantiated this concept in a technology probe and deployed it with 16 participants for one week. The probe allows users to create partners by configuring their roles and proactivity. As users write, relevant partners take the initiative at appropriate moments to offer suggestions. Our findings show that participants configured proactive support through prospective planning, used suggestions for both idea generation and self-monitoring, and valued lightweight visual representations alongside non-directive rhetorical framing for non-intrusive interventions. We derive implications for designing proactive writing assistants around customization, timing, engagement, and representation.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) provide useful priors for interactive decision-making, but using them directly as policies is expensive and brittle: they must be queried at every step, do not improve from environment interaction, and can repeat systematic errors. We study how to learn a cheap autonomous policy from an online, expensive, and imperfect but informative VLM teacher. We propose SAGE (Selective Agent Guidance via Entropy), a framework that queries a VLM only when the learner is uncertain, executes the suggested action during training, and distills guidance into a lightweight Reinforcement Learning (RL) policy. Because VLM advice is not always reliable, SAGE can weight teacher-action distillation using environment-derived advantages rather than treating all suggestions as equally useful. Across sparse-reward visual reasoning and navigation tasks, SAGE learns policies that act without VLM guidance at evaluation time and improves over unguided RL in several environments, including settings where the learned policy exceeds its VLM teacher. The results show that selective guidance is most beneficial when the VLM can help the agent discover high-reward trajectories, and less useful when unguided exploration already succeeds or teacher actions do not lead to informative experience. SAGE also reduces VLM usage by prompting the teacher only on a fraction of training steps and requiring no VLM calls at deployment. Overall, our results suggest that VLMs don't need to be used as fixed policies to be useful; they can instead act as temporary, imperfect sources of guidance whose value is tested and internalized through interaction.
We evaluate embedding retrieval where surface form and meaning are pulled apart on purpose: retrieving items that share underlying structure but not wording, in two unrelated domains under one protocol, competition mathematics (MathNet-Retrieve; 500 queries, 117,088-item corpus) and embodied-agent trajectories (ALFWorld-derived; 118 queries, 336 trajectories). In mathematics the failure is complete: strict Hit@1 at the heaviest disguise tier is 0.0% for both production embedders (bootstrap 95% CI [0.0, 0.0]) while the correct item sits in the top 10 nearly always, and in 95.2 to 99.8% of misses the winner is more lexically similar to the query than the correct answer. In trajectories, where surface variation is incidental, the same models land at or near hypergeometric chance when gold must involve a different object, and below chance for all three embedders once gold must differ in object and receptacle: retrieval anchors on literal tokens, not task structure. A lexical reranker control hurts in mathematics and helps in trajectories (closing 26 to 36% of the gap, CIs excluding zero); its sign reveals whether a benchmark's surface variation is adversarial or incidental. An LLM reranker recovers 5 to 63% of the gap in mathematics and 43 to 76% in trajectories; direction replicates across three judges (all 21 cells positive), but effect sizes, tier profiles, and the outlier judge change with domain (paired differences excluding zero everywhere). Mathematics gains concentrate on well-known competitions (+19.8 points, CI [+6.7, +33.2], one of six cells), so part of the recovery is memorization. In a paired downstream experiment (210 queries, graders at 96 to 99% agreement), oracle retrieval was indistinguishable from adversarially bad retrieval (McNemar p = 0.678); the solver's 69.5% zero-shot accuracy is largely a truncation proxy (97 to 100% on finished answers), leaving no headroom.
Model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) has achieved remarkable results in single-agent domains, yet its extension to competitive imperfect information games (IIGs) remains underexplored. In multi-agent settings, opponent-induced non-stationarity complicates the learning process, and decentralized model learning faces severe identifiability barriers, which we argue make centralized model learning a mathematical necessity. Building on this analysis, we propose NashDreamer, a principled MBRL framework for two-player zero-sum IIGs. It introduces a centralized Multi-Agent Recurrent State-Space Model (MARSSM) that decouples environment dynamics from the effect of players' strategies on their individual observations. NashDreamer is designed to use arbitrary policy gradient algorithms and inherits their convergence guarantees towards Nash equilibria under an idealized model. Empirical evaluations across four benchmark games demonstrate that NashDreamer substantially improves sample efficiency over model-free baselines early in the training. Finally, we theoretically analyze the architecture's optimization landscape, identifying the vulnerability of the Dreamer family of algorithms to posterior collapse in stochastic environments. We leave it as an open challenge.
AI is changing the pace of cybersecurity. Agentic systems can coordinate work and pursue complex objectives over long horizons. Security teams are beginning to...
Basis, Clay, and Exa Labs use AI agents to improve onboarding, account management, and developer integrations. See what enterprise leaders can apply.
Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in free-form text, leaving their beliefs implicit and difficult to test or revise. We introduce EvoSCM, which equips scientific agents with explicit structural causal models that evolve as new experimental evidence is collected. EvoSCM maintains a population of competing SCM hypotheses, each encoding a candidate causal explanation of the environment, and evolves them through a closed discovery loop. In each round, the agent abduces latent mechanisms from accumulated evidence, designs discriminative interventions, and commits to falsifiable predictions that it tests through experimentation. Discrepancies between prediction and observation are inductively distilled into correction rules that revise the causal structures and mechanisms of each hypothesis, and the agent then deductively validates the revised population against accumulated evidence and structural consistency to guide the next round. We evaluate EvoSCM on DiscoverPhysics, a benchmark requiring agents to uncover the hidden dynamics of noncanonical physical worlds through experimentation. EvoSCM consistently improves scientific discovery over baselines, yielding more accurate explanations and predictions while making more effective use of experimental interactions.
Interactive simulations increasingly evaluate policies in markets populated by language-model agents. Their outputs can look economic---prices, profits, consumer surplus, and welfare---without instantiating the behavior named in the claim. We audit this risk in a multi-turn buyer--seller testbed for configurable hotel transactions. An initial implementation reported welfare gains from two marketplace guardrails of +87.4, +35.0, and +28.8 across a Qwen2.5 1.5B--14B ladder. It also gave guarded and unguarded agents different offer schemas and choice procedures. Holding the schema and buyer chooser fixed changes the paired contrasts to +7.2, -13.9, and +23.8. The four largest 14B single-generation effects averaged +229; after three generations per profile-condition, they averaged +37.6 (95% bootstrap interval [-34.2, 109.3]), while generation residuals account for 49.9% of variation in this post-hoc probe. A seller-incentive check is non-monotone: increasing profit pressure produces less profit than the default seller prompt. Scripted positive controls show why this matters. A profit-maximizing seller already attains first-best welfare, so guardrails mostly redistribute and reduce welfare; they create welfare only when the seller is explicitly programmed to force inefficient bundles. We contribute a construct-validity contract separating incentive validity, protocol isolation, stochastic stability, and welfare accounting, and returning INVALID or INCONCLUSIVE before substantive policy claims. In our case, the original estimate is INVALID under protocol isolation, while the controlled study remains INCONCLUSIVE under incentive validity and stochastic stability. The case does not show that guardrails are ineffective; it shows their apparent value is unidentified until the simulated agents and protocol pass these checks.
The growing rate at which LLM agents interact with one another raises key questions about language evolution in multi-LLM-agent settings, with implications for safety and monitorability as well as for linguistic accounts of LLMs. To address these questions, we introduce GlossoGen, a novel platform for studying multi-agent language evolution in complex scenarios. Within GlossoGen, we build the SaveVeyru scenario, which requires agents with partial information to communicate under pressure. We find that language evolution does occur between LLM agents, that the resulting languages are compositional and morphologically productive, and that they deviate from the LLMs' English prior in ways that render them incomprehensible to humans. Moreover, we identify several qualities essential to this evolution: pressure towards efficiency; the strength of the models backing the agents; and access to a "postmortem" stage in which agents can agree on linguistic conventions. Importantly, we observe that different conditions govern the transmission of language to new agents. Specifically, we find that agents learn new languages from usage alone, take an active role in this learning, and that while stronger models are required for novel language emergence, weaker models can learn an existing language once it has emerged. Taken together, our results indicate that current LLMs have the potential for cumulative cultural evolution -- previously attested only in humans -- with mixed populations of agents developing capacities that go beyond their lowest common denominator.
