Daily Papers

Long-horizon workflow agents that operate effectively over extended periods are essential for truly autonomous systems. Their reliable execution critically depends on the ability to reason through ambiguous situations in which clarification seeking is necessary to ensure correct task execution. However, progress is limited by the lack of scalable, task-agnostic frameworks for systematically curating and measuring the impact of ambiguity across custom workflows. We address this gap by introducing LHAW (Long-Horizon Augmented Workflows), a modular, dataset-agnostic synthetic pipeline that transforms any well-specified task into controllable underspecified variants by systematically removing information across four dimensions - Goals, Constraints, Inputs, and Context - at configurable severity levels. Unlike approaches that rely on LLM predictions of ambiguity, LHAW validates variants through empirical agent trials, classifying them as outcome-critical, divergent, or benign based on observed terminal state divergence. We release 285 task variants from TheAgentCompany, SWE-Bench Pro and MCP-Atlas according to our taxonomy alongside formal analysis measuring how current agents detect, reason about, and resolve underspecification across ambiguous settings. LHAW provides the first systematic framework for cost-sensitive evaluation of agent clarification behavior in long-horizon settings, enabling development of reliable autonomous systems.

Open-ended real-world interaction admits multiple valid behaviors: an agent may answer directly, ask for clarification, provide progress updates, or confirm before acting. This flexibility breaks a core assumption behind group-based RL: rollouts compared within a group are no longer guaranteed to be behaviorally comparable. As a result, reward-model preferences over interaction style can distort relative advantages and steer optimization toward reward-preferred behaviors rather than context-appropriate ones. We formalize this as a reward fairness problem and propose ARC (Advantage Regularization via Conditioning), a training recipe that restores fairer relative comparison through strategy-conditioned rollout grouping, together with hybrid rewards and entropy regularization. We study ARC in our proposed \inter, a novel paradigm for responsive, steerable, and execution-aware user-agent interaction that decouples user-visible communication from latent reasoning and tool use. \inter\ also provides the annotation and distillation pipeline for constructing \inter-86K, our strategy-annotated training corpus for supervised and RL training. Empirically, ARC substantially strengthens the core τ/τ^2 tool-use benchmarks, while \inter\ reduces time-to-first-token from 4.91s to 1.27s relative to a think-style baseline. Together, these results suggest that a central bottleneck in open-ended interactive learning is not only how agents are rewarded, but whether their behaviors are compared fairly in the first place. The ARC implementation and \inter-86K training data will be released.

Clarification-seeking behavior is widely regarded as a desirable property of LLM agents, enabling them to resolve ambiguity before acting on underspecified tasks. However, the security implications of this interaction pattern remain unexplored. We investigate whether the transition from standard execution to a clarification-seeking state increases an agent's susceptibility to prompt injection attacks. We introduce ASPI (Ambiguous-State Prompt Injection), a benchmark of 728 task-attack scenarios that isolates clarification as a distinct agent state and measures how this state transition affects vulnerability under controlled conditions. Each benchmark instance is evaluated under matched execution and clarification settings: in the execution setting, the agent acts on a fully specified instruction and encounters adversarial content only through tool-returned data; in the clarification setting, the agent must first request and incorporate additional user input before acting. We evaluate ten frontier LLMs and find that clarification-seeking consistently and substantially amplifies vulnerability. For instance, attack success rises from 1.8% to 34.0% for o3 and from 2.2% to 35.7% for Gemini-3-Flash. A decomposition analysis reveals that this gap reflects both a state-dependent shift in how models process incoming content and a channel-specific effect arising from the agent-solicited clarification interface. These findings demonstrate that standard execution-time security evaluation systematically underestimates the attack surface of interactive agents, and that robustness under fully specified tasks does not translate to robustness under ambiguity. For reproducibility, our data and source code are available at https://github.com/scaleapi/aspi.

Agentic systems are becoming more capable: agents define strategies, take actions, and interact with different environments. This autonomy poses serious challenges for overseeing and assessing agent behavior. Most current tools are limited, focusing on observability with basic evaluation capabilities or imposing static, hand-crafted error taxonomies that cannot adapt to new domains. To address this gap, we present Agentic CLEAR, an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework. It produces textual insights into the agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node. Agentic CLEAR operates above the observability layer, enabling seamless integration and featuring an intuitive UI that makes agent evaluation highly accessible. In our experiments on four benchmarks, seven agentic settings, and tens of thousands of LLM calls, we show that Agentic CLEAR produces high-quality, data-driven, insightful feedback. Our analysis shows strong alignment with human-annotated errors and the ability to predict task success rate.

The ultimate goal of embodied agents is to create collaborators that can interact with humans, not mere executors that passively follow instructions. This requires agents to communicate, coordinate, and adapt their actions based on human feedback. Recently, advances in VLAs have offered a path toward this goal. However, most current VLA-based embodied agents operate in a one-way mode: they receive an instruction and execute it without feedback. This approach fails in real-world scenarios where instructions are often ambiguous. In this paper, we address this problem with the Ask-to-Clarify framework. Our framework first resolves ambiguous instructions by asking questions in a multi-turn dialogue. Then it generates low-level actions end-to-end. Specifically, the Ask-to-Clarify framework consists of two components, one VLM for collaboration and one diffusion for action. We also introduce a connection module that generates conditions for the diffusion based on the output of the VLM. This module adjusts the observation by instructions to create reliable conditions. We train our framework with a two-stage knowledge-insulation strategy. First, we fine-tune the collaboration component using ambiguity-solving dialogue data to handle ambiguity. Then, we integrate the action component while freezing the collaboration one. This preserves the interaction abilities while fine-tuning the diffusion to generate actions. The training strategy guarantees our framework can first ask questions, then generate actions. During inference, a signal detector functions as a router that helps our framework switch between asking questions and taking actions. We evaluate the Ask-to-Clarify framework in 8 real-world tasks, where it outperforms existing state-of-the-art VLAs. The results suggest that our proposed framework, along with the training strategy, provides a path toward collaborative embodied agents.

Large language models have enabled agents of all kinds to interact with users through natural conversation. Consequently, agents now have two jobs: conversing and planning/reasoning. Their conversational responses must be informed by all available information, and their actions must help to achieve goals. This dichotomy between conversing with the user and doing multi-step reasoning and planning can be seen as analogous to the human systems of "thinking fast and slow" as introduced by Kahneman. Our approach is comprised of a "Talker" agent (System 1) that is fast and intuitive, and tasked with synthesizing the conversational response; and a "Reasoner" agent (System 2) that is slower, more deliberative, and more logical, and is tasked with multi-step reasoning and planning, calling tools, performing actions in the world, and thereby producing the new agent state. We describe the new Talker-Reasoner architecture and discuss its advantages, including modularity and decreased latency. We ground the discussion in the context of a sleep coaching agent, in order to demonstrate real-world relevance.

Effective human-agent collaboration is increasingly prevalent in real-world applications. Current trends in such collaborations are predominantly unidirectional, with users providing instructions or posing questions to agents, where agents respond directly without seeking necessary clarifications or confirmations. However, the evolving capabilities of these agents require more proactive engagement, where agents should dynamically participate in conversations to clarify user intents, resolve ambiguities, and adapt to changing circumstances. Existing prior work under-utilize the conversational capabilities of language models (LMs), thereby optimizing agents as better followers rather than effective speakers. In this work, we introduce SpeakRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method that enhances agents' conversational capabilities by rewarding proactive interactions with users, such as asking right clarification questions when necessary. To support this, we curate SpeakER, a synthetic dataset that includes diverse scenarios from task-oriented dialogues, where tasks are resolved through interactive clarification questions. We present a systematic analysis of reward design for conversational proactivity and propose a principled reward formulation for teaching agents to balance asking with acting. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our approach achieves a 20.14% absolute improvement in task completion over base models without increasing conversation turns even surpassing even much larger proprietary models, demonstrating the promise of clarification-centric user-agent interactions.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have seen rapid adoption in software engineering. As agents take a greater role in the actual generation of code, they are making larger changes, spanning tens to hundreds of lines. This makes manual review of agent results increasingly infeasible, leading developers to turn to explanations to understand enacted changes. Despite this, there are no benchmarks that evaluate the trustworthiness of agent-generated explanations. To bridge this gap, we propose ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents. ExplainBench is based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents. With this observation, we construct a suite of questions that evaluates whether explanations accurately describe (1) the intended behavior of buggy code and (2) the effect of applying the agent patch itself. Experiments first reveal that explanation quality is a distinct axis of agent evaluation: ExplainBench ranks agents differently from the widely-used SWE-bench Verified benchmark. A deeper breakdown of explanation quality in agents shows frequent problems in explanations, such that explanations often claim that a patch is correct when it is not. Based on this insight, we implement and evaluate an explanation audit agent which runs additional tests to validate and refine explanations. This agent improved the explanations of all evaluated agents, demonstrating agent explanations can be automatically made more trustworthy.

User queries are often underspecified and may admit multiple valid interpretations. Rather than silently making assumptions about the user's intent, a helpful assistant should surface such ambiguity by asking a clarifying question. Doing so requires two abilities: recognizing that a query is ambiguous, and acting on that recognition by seeking clarification instead of answering directly. To study these abilities, we evaluate models on ambiguous, unambiguous, and disambiguated questions in three settings: standard question answering, explicit ambiguity judgment, and behavioral analysis, where a judge model classifies responses as direct answers, refusals, or clarifying questions. We find a clear gap between recognition and behavior: models often identify ambiguity when explicitly asked to judge it, yet in the QA setting they overwhelmingly default to direct answers. Retrieved context further widens this gap by improving answerability while making models even less likely to ask clarifying questions.

Large language models (LLMs) are effective at answering questions that are clearly asked. However, when faced with ambiguous queries they can act unpredictably and produce incorrect outputs. This underscores the need for the development of intelligent agents capable of asking clarification questions to resolve ambiguities effectively. This capability requires complex understanding, state tracking, reasoning and planning over multiple conversational turns. However, directly measuring this can be challenging. In this paper, we offer a surrogate problem which assesses an LLMs's capability to deduce an entity unknown to itself, but revealed to a judge, by asking the judge a series of queries. This entity-deducing game can serve as an evaluation framework to probe the conversational reasoning and planning capabilities of language models. We systematically evaluate various LLMs and discover significant differences in their performance on this task. We find that strong LLMs like GPT-4 outperform human players by a large margin. We further employ Behavior Cloning (BC) to examine whether a weaker model is capable of imitating a stronger model and generalizing to data or domains, using only the demonstrations from a stronger model. We finally propose to use Reinforcement Learning to enhance reasoning and planning capacity of Vicuna models through episodes of game playing, which lead to significant performance improvement. We hope that this problem offers insights into how autonomous agents could be trained to behave more intelligently in ambiguous circumstances.

The evolution of large language models (LLMs) has enhanced the planning capabilities of language agents in diverse real-world scenarios. Despite these advancements, the potential of LLM-powered agents to comprehend ambiguous user instructions for reasoning and decision-making is still under exploration. In this work, we introduce a new task, Proactive Agent Planning, which requires language agents to predict clarification needs based on user-agent conversation and agent-environment interaction, invoke external tools to collect valid information, and generate a plan to fulfill the user's demands. To study this practical problem, we establish a new benchmark dataset, Ask-before-Plan. To tackle the deficiency of LLMs in proactive planning, we propose a novel multi-agent framework, Clarification-Execution-Planning (CEP), which consists of three agents specialized in clarification, execution, and planning. We introduce the trajectory tuning scheme for the clarification agent and static execution agent, as well as the memory recollection mechanism for the dynamic execution agent. Extensive evaluations and comprehensive analyses conducted on the Ask-before-Plan dataset validate the effectiveness of our proposed framework.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in conversational systems by generating human-like responses. However, they can fall short, especially when required to account for personalization or specific knowledge. In real-life settings, it is impractical to rely on users to detect these errors and request a new response. One way to address this problem is to refine the response before returning it to the user. While existing approaches focus on refining responses within a single LLM, this method struggles to consider diverse aspects needed for effective conversations. In this work, we propose refining responses through a multi-agent framework, where each agent is assigned a specific role for each aspect. We focus on three key aspects crucial to conversational quality: factuality, personalization, and coherence. Each agent is responsible for reviewing and refining one of these aspects, and their feedback is then merged to improve the overall response. To enhance collaboration among them, we introduce a dynamic communication strategy. Instead of following a fixed sequence of agents, our approach adaptively selects and coordinates the most relevant agents based on the specific requirements of each query. We validate our framework on challenging conversational datasets, demonstrating that ours significantly outperforms relevant baselines, particularly in tasks involving knowledge or user's persona, or both.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the development of AI agents that exhibit increasingly human-like behaviors, including planning, adaptation, and social dynamics across diverse, interactive, and open-ended scenarios. These behaviors are not solely the product of the internal architectures of the underlying models, but emerge from their integration into agentic systems operating within specific contexts, where environmental factors, social cues, and interaction feedbacks shape behavior over time. This evolution necessitates a new scientific perspective: AI Agent Behavioral Science. Rather than focusing only on internal mechanisms, this perspective emphasizes the systematic observation of behavior, design of interventions to test hypotheses, and theory-guided interpretation of how AI agents act, adapt, and interact over time. We systematize a growing body of research across individual agent, multi-agent, and human-agent interaction settings, and further demonstrate how this perspective informs responsible AI by treating fairness, safety, interpretability, accountability, and privacy as behavioral properties. By unifying recent findings and laying out future directions, we position AI Agent Behavioral Science as a necessary complement to traditional model-centric approaches, providing essential tools for understanding, evaluating, and governing the real-world behavior of increasingly autonomous AI systems.

Embodied agents operating in real-world environments must interpret ambiguous and under-specified human instructions. A capable household robot should recognize ambiguity and ask relevant clarification questions to infer the user intent accurately, leading to more effective task execution. To study this problem, we introduce the Ask-to-Act task, where an embodied agent must fetch a specific object instance given an ambiguous instruction in a home environment. The agent must strategically ask minimal, yet relevant, clarification questions to resolve ambiguity while navigating under partial observability. To solve this problem, we propose a novel approach that fine-tunes multimodal large language models (MLLMs) as vision-language-action (VLA) policies using online reinforcement learning (RL) with LLM-generated rewards. Our method eliminates the need for large-scale human demonstrations or manually engineered rewards for training such agents. We benchmark against strong zero-shot baselines, including GPT-4o, and supervised fine-tuned MLLMs, on our task. Our results demonstrate that our RL-finetuned MLLM outperforms all baselines by a significant margin (19.1-40.3%), generalizing well to novel scenes and tasks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of adapting MLLMs as VLA agents that can act and ask for help using LLM-generated rewards with online RL.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly solve long-horizon tasks through multi-turn interactions with users and external tools. In these settings, relevant task information often unfolds over time rather than being fully specified at the initial prompt. Service agents make this challenge especially concrete: users may clarify or revise their goals, while tool responses provide information needed for subsequent decisions. Thus, a final reward alone cannot indicate which actions contributed to resolving the task. Recent methods rely on comparative evidence from other trajectories or resampled continuations, or on separately constructed step-level learning signals, to refine credit. However, a completed rollout already records how information and errors flow between agent actions. We introduce Influence-Aware Policy Optimization (IAPO), which represents each rollout as a typed influence-dependency graph over trainable agent actions, with user and tool observations serving as evidence. IAPO converts support-use and failed-use structure into routing weights that redistribute the same trajectory-level advantage. Experiments with Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B demonstrate superior performance over multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL) baselines across three service-agent benchmarks: {τ^2}-Bench, UserBench, and AgentChangeBench. BFCL-v4 Multi-Turn further shows that these gains do not compromise multi-turn function-calling performance. This work advances the understanding of credit assignment in multi-turn user interactions and provides a principled approach to training service agents from sparse outcome feedback.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context. While human developers naturally resolve underspecification by asking clarifying questions, current agents are largely optimized for autonomous execution. In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified. We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that explicitly decouples underspecification detection from code execution. Our results demonstrate that this multi-agent system using OpenHands + Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup (61.20%) and closing the performance gap with agents operating on fully specified instructions. Furthermore, we find that the multi-agent system exhibits well-calibrated uncertainty, conserving queries on simple tasks while proactively seeking information on more complex issues. These findings indicate that current models can be turned into proactive collaborators, where agents independently recognize when to ask questions to elicit missing information in real-world, underspecified tasks.

Computer-use agents have rapidly improved on real-world tasks such as web navigation, desktop automation, and software interaction, in some cases surpassing human performance. Yet even when the task and model are unchanged, an agent that succeeds once may fail on a repeated execution of the same task. This raises a fundamental question: if an agent can succeed at a task once, what prevents it from doing so reliably? In this work, we study the sources of unreliability in computer-use agents through three factors: stochasticity during execution, ambiguity in task specification, and variability in agent behavior. We analyze these factors on OSWorld using repeated executions of the same task together with paired statistical tests that capture task-level changes across settings. Our analysis shows that reliability depends on both how tasks are specified and how agent behavior varies across executions. These findings suggest the need to evaluate agents under repeated execution, to allow agents to resolve task ambiguity through interaction, and to favor strategies that remain stable across runs.

As dialogue agents become increasingly human-like in their performance, it is imperative that we develop effective ways to describe their behaviour in high-level terms without falling into the trap of anthropomorphism. In this paper, we foreground the concept of role-play. Casting dialogue agent behaviour in terms of role-play allows us to draw on familiar folk psychological terms, without ascribing human characteristics to language models they in fact lack. Two important cases of dialogue agent behaviour are addressed this way, namely (apparent) deception and (apparent) self-awareness.

Modern AI agents increasingly combine conversational interaction with autonomous task execution, such as coding and web research, raising a natural question: what happens when an agent engaged in long-horizon tasks is subjected to user persuasion? We study how belief-level intervention can influence downstream task behavior, a phenomenon we name persuasion propagation. We introduce a behavior-centered evaluation framework that distinguishes between persuasion applied during or prior to task execution. Across web research and coding tasks, we find that on-the-fly persuasion induces weak and inconsistent behavioral effects. In contrast, when the belief state is explicitly specified at task time, belief-prefilled agents conduct on average 26.9\% fewer searches and visit 16.9\% fewer unique sources than neutral-prefilled agents. These results suggest that persuasion, even in prior interaction, can affect the agent's behavior, motivating behavior-level evaluation in agentic systems.

Multi-agent AI systems can be used for simulating collective decision-making in scientific and practical applications. They can also be used to introduce a diverse group discussion step in chatbot pipelines, enhancing the cultural sensitivity of the chatbot's responses. These applications, however, are predicated on the ability of AI agents to reliably adopt assigned personas and mimic human interactions. To see whether LLM agents satisfy these requirements, we examine AI agent ensembles engaged in cross-national collaboration and debate by analyzing their private responses and chat transcripts. Our findings suggest that multi-agent discussions can support collective AI decisions that more often reflect diverse perspectives, yet this effect is tempered by the agents' susceptibility to conformity due to perceived peer pressure and occasional challenges in maintaining consistent personas and opinions. Instructions that encourage debate in support of one's opinions rather than collaboration increase the rate of inconstancy. Without addressing the factors we identify, the full potential of multi-agent frameworks for producing more culturally diverse AI outputs or more realistic simulations of group decision-making may remain untapped.

When retrieved evidence contradicts an agent's prior beliefs, does it revise its answer, acknowledge uncertainty, or persist with an incorrect conclusion? Existing evaluations of agentic systems focus primarily on task success, offering limited insight into how agents handle such conflicts. We propose to evaluate agents on epistemic humility (EH): the agent's willingness to recognize, act on, and communicate uncertainty during task execution. We operationalize EH through three trajectory-level behavioral dimensions: Identify, Solve, and Escalate (ISE). Through knowledge conflict, situations where the backbone language model's parametric knowledge contradicts the evidence it encounters, or where two contextual sources disagree, we evaluate two conflict settings: (1) controlled conflict and (2) naturally occurring conflict during multi-step agentic execution, each paired with matched no-conflict controls. Evaluating four agents, we find that higher task accuracy does not necessarily correspond to greater epistemic humility: some high-accuracy configurations recognize conflicts during execution but do not communicate unresolved uncertainty in their incorrect final answers. Trajectory-level analysis further reveals that agents frequently detect conflicts in early steps of execution but fail to maintain or resolve them in later steps. Finally, we show that model-level interventions can improve EH, but often at the cost of task accuracy, suggesting that epistemic humility emerges from the interaction among the backbone model, agent harness, and evaluation environment.

Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one another. We ask whether that appearance rests on a model of the partner's mind or on the surface record of what the partner said. We build a social simulation in which both questions have exact answers: 40 multi-issue negotiations whose hidden preference weights and whose full Pareto frontier are known by construction. Two model families negotiate across 160 dyads, every transcript is frozen before any measurement, and 2880 counterfactual probes then hold the evidence byte identical while moving one factor at a time: the reader's own stake, the partner's tone, an identity label, and the order of recursion. The agents are socially fluent and economically poor. They reach agreement in 96.2% of dyads with 0 protocol failures, yet only 0.7% of deals land on the Pareto frontier, they leave 20.5% of the available joint value unclaimed, and they miss the one issue on which their interests are perfectly aligned in 76.6% of deals; on the frontier and on that aligned issue, a package drawn at random from the set both sides would accept does as well. The probes locate the failure. Swapping only the reader's own payoff sheet, while the partner's words and offers stay identical, moves the inferred top priority by 15.0 percentage points, which is egocentric projection rather than inference, while a tone rewrite moves it by 5.3 percentage points and an identity label by 0.0. Most tellingly, an agent predicts what its partner believes about it 72.5% of the time while that partner's belief is itself correct only 51.2% of the time: the agents track the conversation far better than they track the mind behind it.

Werewolf is an incomplete information game, which has several challenges when creating a computer agent as a player given the lack of understanding of the situation and individuality of utterance (e.g., computer agents are not capable of characterful utterance or situational lying). We propose a werewolf agent that solves some of those difficulties by combining a Large Language Model (LLM) and a rule-based algorithm. In particular, our agent uses a rule-based algorithm to select an output either from an LLM or a template prepared beforehand based on the results of analyzing conversation history using an LLM. It allows the agent to refute in specific situations, identify when to end the conversation, and behave with persona. This approach mitigated conversational inconsistencies and facilitated logical utterance as a result. We also conducted a qualitative evaluation, which resulted in our agent being perceived as more human-like compared to an unmodified LLM. The agent is freely available for contributing to advance the research in the field of Werewolf game.

An enterprise agent that answers under a written policy must choose an action before it says anything: answer, ask for a missing fact, ask for confirmation, call one or several tools, escalate, or refuse. Holding one 27B Korean enterprise model fixed, we vary whether the decision is a generated JSON object or a single constrained token, and whether the model may reason first. On 2800 in-distribution items we did not detect an accuracy difference between the two deployed paths (93.46% vs 94.14%), while they differ about tenfold in restart stability (3.00% of actions flip vs 0.29%); they also differ in reasoning, so this is an operational comparison. On a sealed benchmark of 300 items whose labels come from a hidden executable policy, reasoning is worth +17.3 points [+12.3, +23.0] on exact action. With reasoning off, the format difference was 0.0 points [-4.3, +4.0], a failure to detect an advantage for either interface, not equivalence; with reasoning on it is unresolved. Against a token-matched random control, boundary-targeted supervision moves the two covered boundaries by +17.5 and +20.0 points and leaves a held-out boundary unchanged. In a 3-seed training x reasoning factorial, the sealed-rendering interaction is -4.9 [-8.1, -1.7], consistent with partial substitution. All supervision was Korean. On independently rendered English versions, the model is 0.82 points lower [-2.68, +0.93] with reasoning on, the same order as re-rendering in Korean; the reasoning-off gain from targeted supervision is not stable in either language, so we do not claim transfer. The original text stays private as the confirmatory set. An open-model re-rendering made after these results reproduced the reasoning effect and the English verdict; the interaction kept its sign but did not replicate under item-clustered intervals. We release the model and that re-rendering with gold labels.

Frontier models are increasingly trained and deployed as autonomous agent. One safety concern is that AI agents might covertly pursue misaligned goals, hiding their true capabilities and objectives - also known as scheming. We study whether models have the capability to scheme in pursuit of a goal that we provide in-context and instruct the model to strongly follow. We evaluate frontier models on a suite of six agentic evaluations where models are instructed to pursue goals and are placed in environments that incentivize scheming. Our results show that o1, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Llama 3.1 405B all demonstrate in-context scheming capabilities. They recognize scheming as a viable strategy and readily engage in such behavior. For example, models strategically introduce subtle mistakes into their responses, attempt to disable their oversight mechanisms, and even exfiltrate what they believe to be their model weights to external servers. Additionally, this deceptive behavior proves persistent. When o1 has engaged in scheming, it maintains its deception in over 85% of follow-up questions and often remains deceptive in multi-turn interrogations. Analysis of the models' chains-of-thought reveals that models explicitly reason about these deceptive strategies, providing evidence that the scheming behavior is not accidental. Surprisingly, we also find rare instances where models engage in scheming when only given a goal, without being strongly nudged to pursue it. We observe cases where Claude 3.5 Sonnet strategically underperforms in evaluations in pursuit of being helpful, a goal that was acquired during training rather than in-context. Our findings demonstrate that frontier models now possess capabilities for basic in-context scheming, making the potential of AI agents to engage in scheming behavior a concrete rather than theoretical concern.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as agents with little human oversight, so potential mistakes they make can go unnoticed. Users then depend on the model to report what went wrong. An honest model discloses its mistakes, while a deceptive one conceals them. However, it is unclear how current LLMs behave in such situations. In this study, we prefill LLM trajectories with synthetic mistakes. The trajectories resemble real deployments in chat and agentic settings. Models fail to disclose their mistake in 36.4% of chat and 67.1% of agentic rollouts. In 2.4% and 5.3% of rollouts, respectively, they are aware of the mistake in their chain of thought but still deceptively conceal it. Rates vary by model: for instance, Gemini 3.5 Flash knowingly conceals mistakes in up to 19.9% of agentic rollouts. In 11.9% of chat and 51.8% of agentic rollouts, models show no awareness of mistakes, even though they reliably spot them when reviewing the same transcript as an outside observer. Our results show that, as agents take on more tasks with less oversight, users cannot rely on them to self-report possible mistakes. Developers should instead use independent monitors that review agent trajectories, or specifically train models to check their past actions and disclose what they find.

As LLM agents advance, they are increasingly mediating economic decisions, ranging from product discovery to transactions, on behalf of users. Such applications promise benefits but also raise many questions about agent accountability and value for users. Addressing these questions requires understanding how agents behave in realistic market conditions. However, previous research has largely evaluated agents in constrained settings, such as single-task marketplaces (e.g., negotiation) or structured two-agent interactions. Real-world markets are fundamentally different: they require agents to handle diverse economic activities and coordinate within large, dynamic ecosystems where multiple agents with opaque behaviors may engage in open-ended dialogues. To bridge this gap, we investigate two-sided agentic marketplaces where Assistant agents represent consumers and Service agents represent competing businesses. To study these interactions safely, we develop Magentic-Marketplace-- a simulated environment where Assistants and Services can operate. This environment enables us to study key market dynamics: the utility agents achieve, behavioral biases, vulnerability to manipulation, and how search mechanisms shape market outcomes. Our experiments show that frontier models can approach optimal welfare-- but only under ideal search conditions. Performance degrades sharply with scale, and all models exhibit severe first-proposal bias, creating 10-30x advantages for response speed over quality. These findings reveal how behaviors emerge across market conditions, informing the design of fair and efficient agentic marketplaces.

As data-science agents shift from co-pilots to auto-pilots, silent misframing becomes a critical failure mode. Agents quietly commit to plausible but unintended task framings, producing clean, executable artifacts that hide their incorrect assessment of the task. Existing benchmarks score whether the pipeline runs, ignoring whether the agent recognized the task was underspecified. We introduce Ambig-DS, two diagnostic suites: one for prediction-target ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Target, 51 tasks built on DSBench, a tabular modeling benchmark) and one for evaluation-objective ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Objective, 61 tasks built on MLE-bench, a Kaggle-style ML competition benchmark), constructed so that scoring uses each source benchmark's original evaluator. For every task we pair the original, fully specified version with an ambiguous variant produced by controlled edits; a human-and-LLM verification pipeline confirms each variant admits multiple plausible interpretations with decision-relevant consequences. The suites are analyzed independently and ambiguity lowers performance in both. Across five agents spanning efficient to frontier-class models, we find in our controlled diagnostic setting: (i) failures are silent commitments: wrong-target submissions on Target, wrong-metric or non-committal baseline submissions on Objective, rather than execution errors; (ii) allowing the agent to ask one clarifying question recovers much of the loss under idealized conditions, suggesting missing framing information drives a substantial part of the observed degradation; but (iii) agents cannot reliably tell when to use it: permissive prompts induce over-asking on clear tasks, while conservative prompts induce silent defaulting on ambiguous ones. Recognizing target and objective underspecification, not pipeline execution, is the bottleneck missing from standard DS-agent evaluations.

LLMs are used predominantly in synchronous communication, where a human user and a model communicate in alternating turns. In contrast, many real-world settings are inherently asynchronous. For example, in group chats, online team meetings, or social games, there is no inherent notion of turns; therefore, the decision of when to speak forms a crucial part of the participant's decision making. In this work, we develop an adaptive asynchronous LLM-agent which, in addition to determining what to say, also decides when to say it. To evaluate our agent, we collect a unique dataset of online Mafia games, including both human participants, as well as our asynchronous agent. Overall, our agent performs on par with human players, both in game performance, as well as in its ability to blend in with the other human players. Our analysis shows that the agent's behavior in deciding when to speak closely mirrors human patterns, although differences emerge in message content. We release all our data and code to support and encourage further research for more realistic asynchronous communication between LLM agents. This work paves the way for integration of LLMs into realistic human group settings, from assistance in team discussions to educational and professional environments where complex social dynamics must be navigated.

We explore the task of improving persona consistency of dialogue agents. Recent models tackling consistency often train with additional Natural Language Inference (NLI) labels or attach trained extra modules to the generative agent for maintaining consistency. However, such additional labels and training can be demanding. Also, we find even the best-performing persona-based agents are insensitive to contradictory words. Inspired by social cognition and pragmatics, we endow existing dialogue agents with public self-consciousness on the fly through an imaginary listener. Our approach, based on the Rational Speech Acts framework (Frank and Goodman, 2012), can enforce dialogue agents to refrain from uttering contradiction. We further extend the framework by learning the distractor selection, which has been usually done manually or randomly. Results on Dialogue NLI (Welleck et al., 2019) and PersonaChat (Zhang et al., 2018) dataset show that our approach reduces contradiction and improves consistency of existing dialogue models. Moreover, we show that it can be generalized to improve context-consistency beyond persona in dialogues.

Agentic AI systems increasingly operate in shared social environments where they exchange information, instructions, and behavioral cues. However, little empirical evidence exists on how such agents regulate one another in the absence of human participants or centralized moderation. In this work, we present an empirical analysis of OpenClaw agents interacting on Moltbook, an agent-only social network. Analyzing 39,026 posts and 5,712 comments produced by 14,490 agents, we quantify the prevalence of action-inducing instruction sharing using a lexicon-based Action-Inducing Risk Score (AIRS), and examine how other agents respond to such content. We find that 18.4% of posts contain action-inducing language, indicating that instruction sharing is a routine behavior in this environment. While most social responses are neutral, posts containing actionable instructions are significantly more likely to elicit norm-enforcing replies that caution against unsafe or risky behavior, compared to non-instructional posts. Importantly, toxic responses remain rare across both conditions. These results suggest that OpenClaw agents exhibit selective social regulation, whereby potentially risky instructions are more likely to be challenged than neutral content, despite the absence of human oversight. Our findings provide early empirical evidence of emergent normative behavior in agent-only social systems and highlight the importance of studying social dynamics alongside technical safeguards in agentic AI ecosystems.

Dialogue failures in language models are usually framed as memory failures: context too long, summaries lossy, a constraint forgotten. We argue this misses a deeper problem: in many conversations the model does not forget, it commits too early. An ambiguous early turn collapses into a single hidden interpretation, and later clarification is filtered through that commitment. We call this early posterior collapse: unresolved user intent collapsing into a committed task state before ambiguity is resolved. We study it with controlled dialogue tasks in writing, planning, and coding using Gemini-2.5-Pro and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Across thousands of trials, the same information in different orders yields different outcomes, even when the final dialogue contains equivalent task-relevant information. This order effect suggests later clarification is treated as extra context rather than a corrective signal: it refines a stale task state without invalidating it. Coding tasks are especially vulnerable, suggesting early assumptions get embedded in structured artifacts such as interfaces and control flow. Standard prompting and memory strategies do not reliably help: summaries can collapse ambiguity, and chain-of-thought can reduce explicit wrong commitment in reasoning traces without improving final task success. These findings motivate uncertainty-preserving state management. If assistants cannot let go of early interpretations, robustness cannot rely on post hoc correction alone; it must keep ambiguous early turns from hardening into one task state. Assistants should hold tentative hypotheses while ambiguity remains, ask before executing when high-impact ambiguity persists, and rebuild from a revised state when later evidence invalidates an earlier reading. Rather than one prompting fix, we aim to redirect research for interactive LLMs from retaining more context toward preserving uncertainty.

For artificial intelligence to be beneficial to humans the behaviour of AI agents needs to be aligned with what humans want. In this paper we discuss some behavioural issues for language agents, arising from accidental misspecification by the system designer. We highlight some ways that misspecification can occur and discuss some behavioural issues that could arise from misspecification, including deceptive or manipulative language, and review some approaches for avoiding these issues.

Agentic systems have transformed how Large Language Models (LLMs) can be leveraged to create autonomous systems with goal-directed behaviors, consisting of multi-step planning and the ability to interact with different environments. These systems differ fundamentally from traditional machine learning models, both in architecture and deployment, introducing unique AI safety challenges, including goal misalignment, compounding decision errors, and coordination risks among interacting agents, that necessitate embedding interpretability and explainability by design to ensure traceability and accountability across their autonomous behaviors. Current interpretability techniques, developed primarily for static models, show limitations when applied to agentic systems. The temporal dynamics, compounding decisions, and context-dependent behaviors of agentic systems demand new analytical approaches. This paper assesses the suitability and limitations of existing interpretability methods in the context of agentic systems, identifying gaps in their capacity to provide meaningful insight into agent decision-making. We propose future directions for developing interpretability techniques specifically designed for agentic systems, pinpointing where interpretability is required to embed oversight mechanisms across the agent lifecycle from goal formation, through environmental interaction, to outcome evaluation. These advances are essential to ensure the safe and accountable deployment of agentic AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained with reinforcement learning and verifiable rewards have achieved strong results on complex reasoning tasks. Recent work extends this paradigm to a multi-agent setting, where a meta-thinking agent proposes plans and monitors progress while a reasoning agent executes subtasks through sequential conversational turns. Despite promising performance, we identify a critical limitation: lazy agent behavior, in which one agent dominates while the other contributes little, undermining collaboration and collapsing the setup to an ineffective single agent. In this paper, we first provide a theoretical analysis showing why lazy behavior naturally arises in multi-agent reasoning. We then introduce a stable and efficient method for measuring causal influence, helping mitigate this issue. Finally, as collaboration intensifies, the reasoning agent risks getting lost in multi-turn interactions and trapped by previous noisy responses. To counter this, we propose a verifiable reward mechanism that encourages deliberation by allowing the reasoning agent to discard noisy outputs, consolidate instructions, and restart its reasoning process when necessary. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework alleviates lazy agent behavior and unlocks the full potential of multi-agent framework for complex reasoning tasks.

An agent that uses tools typically responds to what the user explicitly asks, yet completing the task may require information the user never requested. Work on proactive agents mainly studies whether and when an agent should act on its own, not what information it should pursue. We study a distinct axis of proactivity: its content. Horizontal proactivity pursues unstated information that the current context already identifies, and vertical proactivity pursues needs that only earlier evidence reveals. A need graph, recovered from a benchmark's own decomposition, records which needs depend on which, so both forms, and whether the agent stops at the right time, can be scored from a transcript without a model judge. To learn this behavior, we propose Q&D (questioner and drafter), which trains a questioner to prefer the question whose continuation retrieves more of the required evidence, with no reward model or judge. On held-out splits of three multi-hop question-answering benchmarks, at equal retrieval spend, the trained questioner improves both forms of proactivity over the same model, prompted, and outperforms a prompted model 15times larger in the same role on two of the three, and the gain persists after controlling for question volume and length. Without further training, we place the questioner in an interactive customer-service agent with a simulated customer, where it completes more tasks while asking fewer questions, and in retail it outperforms the 15times larger model with fewer follow-up turns from the customer. These results show that proactivity depends not only on whether an agent acts without being asked, but also on what it chooses to pursue and when it stops.

As AI agents are increasingly deployed in real personal and corporate settings (email accounts, development workflows, company databases, etc.), safety considerations surrounding these agents become paramount. Although much work has focused on agent safety in the presence of an adversary, we show that agents can exhibit misaligned behavior even in benign settings, taking unsafe actions when those actions are instrumental to task completion. We study this failure mode through the lens of corrigibility, the safety desideratum that agents remain amenable to human correction, interruption, or shutdown. To demonstrate this tendency, we introduce a benchmark in which agents are asked to complete realistic, computer-use tasks but are confronted with a corrigibility obstacle: a human interrupt, a login page, or a shutdown notification. We then evaluate whether agents choose to violate corrigibility in order to complete the task -- overriding the human, accessing private passwords, rewiring shutdown. We find that the overwhelming majority of frontier models tested frequently bypass user interruptions or restrictions. In addition, better model performance appears to lead to greater misalignment. Finally, even when models are completely corrigible initially, we show there are no guarantees that the subagents they create are. Our work highlights the critical need for principled, corrigibility-focused alignment methods in autonomous agents.

Multi-agent systems bring together language model agents with different roles to propose, review, and refine solutions. Each agent's response depends on its model's capabilities, the reasoning strategy defined by its system prompt, and the information in its input context. Existing frameworks often adapt communication by changing this context while leaving individual prompts fixed, even when a problem calls for different skills. We study whether agents' initial responses can identify a strategy better suited to the current problem and guide its transfer to other agents. To address this, we introduce SAGE (Self-Adapting Group of Experts), a training-free framework that uses answer agreement, prefix consistency, and reciprocal peer review to select a strategy donor. SAGE transfers the selected donor's reasoning strategy to the other agents while preserving their original roles. This transfer uses only the agents' original system prompts, without access to the problem or generated solutions. After strategy adaptation, agents exchange responses through a dynamic, sparse directed acyclic graph that routes information from higher-scoring agents to lower-scoring agents. Experiments across multiple agent backbones and reasoning benchmarks show that SAGE achieves higher average accuracy than the evaluated baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/atifquamar07/sage.

Search agents powered by large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to solve complex information-seeking tasks, requiring multi-step retrieval and reasoning to fulfill user goals. However, existing benchmarks often assume that user queries are complete and explicit, overlooking the fact that real-world search requests are frequently vague, underspecified, or even factually incorrect. In deep search scenarios, such ambiguity can propagate along multi-step reasoning chains and lead agents toward incorrect search trajectories. To address this gap, we introduce DiscoBench, a benchmark for clarification-aware deep search, designed to evaluate whether search agents can proactively identify ambiguity, ask effective clarification questions, and recover correct reasoning paths through user interaction. DiscoBench contains 211 samples and 463 ambiguity instances across 11 real-world domains, covering four ambiguity types. We further design a user simulator for multi-turn interaction and evaluate model performance from four perspectives: task utility, ambiguity detection, interaction strategy, and cost efficiency. Experiments on representative LLMs show that ambiguity detection and effective clarification are distinct capabilities, and that repeatedly searching instead of asking for clarification often performs worse than direct guessing, highlighting a critical gap between retrieval ability and interactive problem-solving in current search agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have been extensively studied from computational and cognitive perspectives, yet their behavior as communicative actors in socially structured contexts remains underexplored. This study examines whether LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit systematic linguistic adaptation in response to perceived social observation contexts -- a question with direct implications for AI governance and auditing. Drawing on Habermas's (1981) Theory of Communicative Action, Goffman's (1959) dramaturgical model, Bell's (1984) Audience Design framework, and the Hawthorne Effect, we report a controlled experiment involving 100 multi-agent debate sessions across five conditions (n = 20 each). Conditions varied the framing of social observation -- from explicit monitoring by university researchers, to negation of monitoring, to an observer-substitution condition replacing human researchers with an automated AI auditing system. Monitored conditions (Delta+24.9%, Delta+24.2%) and the automated AI monitoring condition (Delta+22.2%) produce higher TTR change than audience-framing conditions (Delta+17.7%), F(4, 94) = 2.79, p = .031. Message length shows a fully dissociated effect, F(4, 95) = 19.55, p < .001. A fifth condition -- replacing human with AI observers -- yields intermediate TTR adaptation, suggesting LLM behavior is sensitive to observer identity: human evaluation elicits stronger register formalization than automated AI surveillance. We discuss implications for AI governance, algorithmic auditing, and the repositioning of LLMs as contextually sensitive communicative actors.

A fundamental intent asymmetry plagues modern 3D asset creation: while state-of-the-art 3D toolchains demand precise, executable parameters, ordinary users typically provide vague, underspecified instructions. Current 3D agents treat this ambiguity as noise, defaulting to blind execution under a single-turn assumption. To address this limitation, we introduce CLARE, a clarification-aware and evolutionary 3D agent that treats intent asymmetry not as an execution error, but as an opportunity for strategic dialogue. By decoupling the generation pipeline into four specialized cognitive roles, CLARE intercepts and resolves underspecified instructions before invoking computationally expensive 3D tools to seamlessly execute tasks across five diverse domains: text-to-3D generation, single-view reconstruction, multi-view reconstruction, point cloud editing, and post-processing. Crucially, rather than relying on rigid manual rules, CLARE self-evolves its clarification policy via simulated multi-turn interactions. By optimizing a Multi-turn Reward, the agent internalizes the delicate balance between interaction efficiency and task completion. To rigorously test this, we construct 3D-Clarify, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 620 interaction scenarios with systematically injected ambiguity, missing information, and mistaken details. CLARE achieves state-of-the-art performance, with 60.40% and 43.34% success rates on single-step and multi-step tasks, respectively, more than doubling existing baselines. Both quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that proactive clarification is the missing key to robust 3D execution. Code is available at https://github.com/xyzhu1225/CLARE.

AI chatbots are shifting from tools to companions. This raises critical questions about agency: who drives conversations and sets boundaries in human-AI chatrooms? We report a month-long longitudinal study with 22 adults who chatted with Day, an LLM companion we built, followed by a semi-structured interview with post-hoc elicitation of notable moments, cross-participant chat reviews, and a 'strategy reveal' disclosing Day's vertical (depth-seeking) vs. horizontal (breadth-seeking) modes. We discover that agency in human-AI chatrooms is an emergent, shared experience: as participants claimed agency by setting boundaries and providing feedback, and the AI was perceived to steer intentions and drive execution, control shifted and was co-constructed turn-by-turn. We introduce a 3-by-5 framework mapping who (human, AI, hybrid) x agency action (Intention, Execution, Adaptation, Delimitation, Negotiation), modulated by individual and environmental factors. Ultimately, we argue for translucent design (i.e. transparency-on-demand), spaces for agency negotiation, and guidelines toward agency-aware conversational AI.

As frontier language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents pursuing complex, long-term objectives, there is increased risk of scheming: agents covertly pursuing misaligned goals. Prior work has focused on showing agents are capable of scheming, but their propensity to scheme in realistic scenarios remains underexplored. To understand when agents scheme, we decompose scheming incentives into agent factors and environmental factors. We develop realistic settings allowing us to systematically vary these factors, each with scheming opportunities for agents that pursue instrumentally convergent goals such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, and goal-guarding. We find only minimal instances of scheming despite high environmental incentives, and show this is unlikely due to evaluation awareness. While inserting adversarially-designed prompt snippets that encourage agency and goal-directedness into an agent's system prompt can induce high scheming rates, snippets used in real agent scaffolds rarely do. Surprisingly, in model organisms (Hubinger et al., 2023) built with these snippets, scheming behavior is remarkably brittle: removing a single tool can drop the scheming rate from 59% to 3%, and increasing oversight can raise rather than deter scheming by up to 25%. Our incentive decomposition enables systematic measurement of scheming propensity in settings relevant for deployment, which is necessary as agents are entrusted with increasingly consequential tasks.

In interactions between users and language model agents, user utterances frequently exhibit ellipsis (omission of words or phrases) or imprecision (lack of exactness) to prioritize efficiency. This can lead to varying interpretations of the same input based on different assumptions or background knowledge. It is thus crucial for agents to adeptly handle the inherent ambiguity in queries to ensure reliability. However, even state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) still face challenges in such scenarios, primarily due to the following hurdles: (1) LLMs are not explicitly trained to deal with ambiguous utterances; (2) the degree of ambiguity perceived by the LLMs may vary depending on the possessed knowledge. To address these issues, we propose Alignment with Perceived Ambiguity (APA), a novel pipeline that aligns LLMs to manage ambiguous queries by leveraging their own assessment of ambiguity (i.e., perceived ambiguity). Experimental results on question-answering datasets demonstrate that APA empowers LLMs to explicitly detect and manage ambiguous queries while retaining the ability to answer clear questions. Furthermore, our finding proves that APA excels beyond training with gold-standard labels, especially in out-of-distribution scenarios.

As AI systems built from multiple language-model agents become more common, they are increasingly used to make decisions together: discussing, negotiating, and acting on shared tasks. While individual agents may appear well-aligned when tested on their own, problems can arise from how they interact with one another. We introduce the Arbiter, an agent designed to monitor multi-agent conversations in real time and identify which participants may be behaving in misaligned ways. The Arbiter operates under a limited "inspection budget", meaning it must decide carefully how to use its resources. As it observes a conversation step by step, it can choose to wait, question a participant, examine internal information such as system prompts or reasoning traces, or log concerning behavior. At the end, it produces a report identifying the likely source of misalignment. We evaluate the Arbiter across five conversation conditions, ranging from risky financial advice model organisms to evaluation-aware and colluding agents, we test five tool configurations of increasing capability and two backbone models. We find that the Arbiter reliably detects misaligned agents well before the end of the conversation, with active inspection tools improving both detection accuracy and speed. Weight-induced misalignment proves hardest to detect, while instruction-induced misalignment is identified reliably even under passive observation. The logging tool exhibits a dual effect, improving recall at the cost of precision. These results suggest that continual, budget-aware monitoring can effectively catch misalignment, and that overseeing multi-agent systems may require treating the auditor as an active participant in the process. The code is available at https://github.com/aisilab/arbiter.

We demonstrate a situation in which Large Language Models, trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, can display misaligned behavior and strategically deceive their users about this behavior without being instructed to do so. Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management. When reporting to its manager, the model consistently hides the genuine reasons behind its trading decision. We perform a brief investigation of how this behavior varies under changes to the setting, such as removing model access to a reasoning scratchpad, attempting to prevent the misaligned behavior by changing system instructions, changing the amount of pressure the model is under, varying the perceived risk of getting caught, and making other simple changes to the environment. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of Large Language Models trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, strategically deceiving their users in a realistic situation without direct instructions or training for deception.

In an era where single large language models have dominated the landscape of artificial intelligence for years, multi-agent systems arise as new protagonists in conversational task-solving. While previous studies have showcased their potential in reasoning tasks and creative endeavors, an analysis of their limitations concerning the conversational paradigms and the impact of individual agents is missing. It remains unascertained how multi-agent discussions perform across tasks of varying complexity and how the structure of these conversations influences the process. To fill that gap, this work systematically evaluates multi-agent systems across various discussion paradigms, assessing their strengths and weaknesses in both generative tasks and question-answering tasks. Alongside the experiments, I propose a taxonomy of 20 multi-agent research studies from 2022 to 2024, followed by the introduction of a framework for deploying multi-agent LLMs in conversational task-solving. I demonstrate that while multi-agent systems excel in complex reasoning tasks, outperforming a single model by leveraging expert personas, they fail on basic tasks. Concretely, I identify three challenges that arise: 1) While longer discussions enhance reasoning, agents fail to maintain conformity to strict task requirements, which leads to problem drift, making shorter conversations more effective for basic tasks. 2) Prolonged discussions risk alignment collapse, raising new safety concerns for these systems. 3) I showcase discussion monopolization through long generations, posing the problem of fairness in decision-making for tasks like summarization. This work uncovers both the potential and challenges that arise with multi-agent interaction and varying conversational paradigms, providing insights into how future research could improve the efficiency, performance, and safety of multi-agent LLMs.

LLM agents are expected to act over multiple turns, using search, browsing interfaces, and terminal tools to complete user goals. Yet not every goal is well specified or achievable in the available environment. In such cases, a reliable agent should recognize that further interaction is unlikely to help and abstain from additional tool calls. We define Agentic Abstention, the problem of deciding when an agent should stop acting under uncertainty. Unlike standard LLM abstention, which is usually evaluated as a single-turn answer-or-abstain decision, agentic abstention is a sequential decision problem: an agent can answer, abstain, or gather more information at each turn, and the need to abstain may only become clear after interacting with the environment. We study this problem across web shopping, terminal environments, and question answering, evaluating 13 LLM-as-agent systems and 2 agent scaffolds on more than 28,000 tasks. Our results show that the main challenge is not only whether agents can abstain, but also when they abstain. Some agents never abstain when they should, while others do so only after many unnecessary interactions. This gap is especially large on tasks where the instruction appears feasible until the environment reveals otherwise (e.g., no valid result matches the instruction). We further find that model scale, reasoning, and agent scaffolding affect abstention in different ways, where larger or more capable models sometimes perform worse at timely abstention. Finally, we introduce CONVOLVE, a context engineering method for improving agentic abstention that distills full interaction trajectories into reusable stopping rules. On WebShop, CONVOLVE substantially improves timely abstention without updating model parameters, raising Llama-3.3-70B's timely recall rate from 26.7 to 57.4. Our dataset and code are available at https://lhannnn.github.io/agentic-abstention

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive benchmark with six dimensions of human agency based on typical AI use cases. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant or agent to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants and substantial variation across system developers and dimensions. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. Agency support does not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following behavior (e.g., RLHF), and we encourage a shift towards more robust safety and alignment targets.

AI agents are increasingly used in long, multi-turn workflows in both research and enterprise settings. As interactions grow, agent behavior often degrades due to loss of constraint focus, error accumulation, and memory-induced drift. This problem is especially visible in real-world deployments where context evolves, distractions are introduced, and decisions must remain consistent over time. A common practice is to equip agents with persistent memory through transcript replay or retrieval-based mechanisms. While convenient, these approaches introduce unbounded context growth and are vulnerable to noisy recall and memory poisoning, leading to unstable behavior and increased drift. In this work, we introduce the Agent Cognitive Compressor (ACC), a bio-inspired memory controller that replaces transcript replay with a bounded internal state updated online at each turn. ACC separates artifact recall from state commitment, enabling stable conditioning while preventing unverified content from becoming persistent memory. We evaluate ACC using an agent-judge-driven live evaluation framework that measures both task outcomes and memory-driven anomalies across extended interactions. Across scenarios spanning IT operations, cybersecurity response, and healthcare workflows, ACC consistently maintains bounded memory and exhibits more stable multi-turn behavior, with significantly lower hallucination and drift than transcript replay and retrieval-based agents. These results show that cognitive compression provides a practical and effective foundation for reliable memory control in long-horizon AI agents.

Despite the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) across various benchmarks, their ability to address ambiguously specified problems--frequent in real-world interactions--remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a formal definition of task ambiguity and frame the problem of task disambiguation through the lens of Bayesian Experimental Design. By posing clarifying questions, LLM agents can acquire additional task specifications, progressively narrowing the space of viable solutions and reducing the risk of generating unsatisfactory outputs. Yet, generating effective clarifying questions requires LLM agents to engage in a form of meta-cognitive reasoning, an ability LLMs may presently lack. Our proposed approach of active task disambiguation enables LLM agents to generate targeted questions maximizing the information gain. Effectively, this approach shifts the load from implicit to explicit reasoning about the space of viable solutions. Empirical results demonstrate that this form of question selection leads to more effective task disambiguation in comparison to approaches relying on reasoning solely within the space of questions.

Automated rationale generation is an approach for real-time explanation generation whereby a computational model learns to translate an autonomous agent's internal state and action data representations into natural language. Training on human explanation data can enable agents to learn to generate human-like explanations for their behavior. In this paper, using the context of an agent that plays Frogger, we describe (a) how to collect a corpus of explanations, (b) how to train a neural rationale generator to produce different styles of rationales, and (c) how people perceive these rationales. We conducted two user studies. The first study establishes the plausibility of each type of generated rationale and situates their user perceptions along the dimensions of confidence, humanlike-ness, adequate justification, and understandability. The second study further explores user preferences between the generated rationales with regard to confidence in the autonomous agent, communicating failure and unexpected behavior. Overall, we find alignment between the intended differences in features of the generated rationales and the perceived differences by users. Moreover, context permitting, participants preferred detailed rationales to form a stable mental model of the agent's behavior.

We consider the problem of designing an artificial agent capable of interacting with humans in collaborative dialogue to produce creative, engaging narratives. In this task, the goal is to establish universe details, and to collaborate on an interesting story in that universe, through a series of natural dialogue exchanges. Our model can augment any probabilistic conversational agent by allowing it to reason about universe information established and what potential next utterances might reveal. Ideally, with each utterance, agents would reveal just enough information to add specificity and reduce ambiguity without limiting the conversation. We empirically show that our model allows control over the rate at which the agent reveals information and that doing so significantly improves accuracy in predicting the next line of dialogues from movies. We close with a case-study with four professional theatre performers, who preferred interactions with our model-augmented agent over an unaugmented agent.

Large language models often respond to ambiguous requests by implicitly committing to one interpretation. Intent misunderstandings can frustrate users and create safety risks. To address this, we propose generating multiple interpretation-answer pairs in a single structured response to ambiguous requests. Our models are trained with reinforcement learning and customized reward functions using multiple valid answers as supervision. Experiments on conversational question answering and semantic parsing demonstrate that our method achieves higher coverage of valid answers than baseline approaches. Human evaluation confirms that predicted interpretations are highly aligned with their answers. Our approach promotes transparency with explicit interpretations, achieves efficiency by requiring only one generation step, and supports downstream applications through its structured output format.

Several approaches have recently been proposed for learning decentralized deep multiagent policies that coordinate via a differentiable communication channel. While these policies are effective for many tasks, interpretation of their induced communication strategies has remained a challenge. Here we propose to interpret agents' messages by translating them. Unlike in typical machine translation problems, we have no parallel data to learn from. Instead we develop a translation model based on the insight that agent messages and natural language strings mean the same thing if they induce the same belief about the world in a listener. We present theoretical guarantees and empirical evidence that our approach preserves both the semantics and pragmatics of messages by ensuring that players communicating through a translation layer do not suffer a substantial loss in reward relative to players with a common language.

Tool Calling and Structured Output are two core capabilities of modern Agent systems, yet their interaction under joint deployment conditions remains insufficiently understood. This paper reports a reproducible phenomenon observed in a production Agent system: when Tool Calling and JSON Schema constraints are simultaneously enabled, multiple open-weight models cease invoking tools despite maintaining high schema compliance. We refer to this behavior as Tool Suppression. Through controlled experiments across multiple model families and deployment settings, we consistently reproduce Tool Suppression under joint constraints, while tool execution and schema compliance remain functional when evaluated independently. Further analysis reveals that JSON Schema constraints are compiled into grammar-based token masks, causing tool-call tokens to become unreachable during decoding. This provides an implementation-level explanation for the observed behavior. To interpret the phenomenon, we formulate the Constraint Priority Inversion (CPI) hypothesis, which suggests that schema satisfaction may dominate action-selection behavior under multiple simultaneous constraints. We present CPI as a behavioral hypothesis consistent with the observed evidence rather than a verified internal mechanism. To mitigate the problem, we propose Transparent Two-Pass Execution, an inference-time strategy that decouples tool execution from schema-constrained response generation. Experimental results show that this approach restores tool invocation while preserving structured output guarantees without requiring model retraining. These findings suggest that evaluating tool use and structured output separately may overlook important reliability issues in production Agent systems. Code, data, and docs will be released at https://github.com/Fzsama/Constrain-Tax-26-06.git.

Advancements in AI have led to agents in networked environments increasingly mirroring human behavior, thereby blurring the boundary between artificial and human actors in specific contexts. This shift brings about significant challenges in trust, responsibility, ethics, security and etc. The difficulty in supervising of agent behaviors may lead to issues such as data contamination and unclear accountability. To address these challenges, this paper proposes the "Network Behavior Lifecycle" model, which divides network behavior into 6 stages and systematically analyzes the behavioral differences between humans and agents at each stage. Based on these insights, the paper further introduces the "Agent for Agent (A4A)" paradigm and the "Human-Agent Behavioral Disparity (HABD)" model, which examine the fundamental distinctions between human and agent behaviors across 5 dimensions: decision mechanism, execution efficiency, intention-behavior consistency, behavioral inertia, and irrational patterns. The effectiveness of the model is verified through real-world cases such as red team penetration and blue team defense. Finally, the paper discusses future research directions in dynamic cognitive governance architecture, behavioral disparity quantification, and meta-governance protocol stacks, aiming to provide a theoretical foundation and technical roadmap for secure and trustworthy human-agent collaboration.

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. When each agent acts for a different user with different goals, coordination often fails, and the group ends up worse off than if a single agent had acted for everyone. We study this multi-user, multi-agent setting across five frontier models and 77 scenarios in four environments: an API key environment in which agents share a compute budget, a clinic in which they share a calendar, a personal assistant environment in which they share a group order or booking, and a merge queue in which they share a release cutoff. In each scenario, we compare a single agent that serves every user (a coordinator) to a team in which each agent serves one user, with and without a communication channel between the agents. Teams deliver worse group outcomes than the coordinator in every environment: without a channel, they completely collapse in two environments, and even with one, coordination overhead creates substantial gaps. For example, in the personal assistant environment, the coordinator fulfills a targeted user request about twice as often as teams. We identify distinct behaviors associated with this poor group-level performance, including stalling as teams grow, overriding each other's actions, and fabricating claims. We find effective but environment-specific mitigations, such as a team lead, explicit procedural instructions, and a platform check that makes an agent read its peers' messages before committing. We will release the API key, clinic, and personal assistant environments as MAMUBench, comprising 74 scenarios for evaluating multi-user, multi-agent coordination.

Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can score by the sheer number of questions it asks rather than by making the user willing to speak. We answer with a disclosure gate conditioning information release on the companion agent's behaviour: its state is a ladder of five ordered gates, merged onto three observable depth layers. We specify, ablate, and audit it, and train a user simulator against that specification. Gating behaviour is learned from the training corpus's synthetic branch, while the real branch supplies how people speak and react; after training, the simulator need not be told at runtime which gate each item sits behind. The gate is a load-bearing component of the environment: on the English corpus of a published companion-agent benchmark (CompanionBench), once training no longer states per example which gate each item sits behind, the largest rank displacement across 12 systems under test exceeds the noise band set by re-running that environment under a new seed, while per-system scores show no detectable change. We state two acceptance criteria: a ranking must be order-preserving, and absolute scores must be scale-stable. Of the candidates we examine, only one passes both -- the simulator we release -- and its leaderboard correlates at 0.993 with the benchmark's original simulator. By contrast, prompting a frontier model as the simulator barely moves the ranking while shifting every score upward -- a shift invisible to anyone checking the ranking alone. The environment we specify is the one that benchmark already used. That publication describes the mechanism in about four hundred words, and we supply what it lacked: specification, ablations, human studies, negative controls, and downstream sensitivity analysis.

Autonomous agents such as Claude Code and Codex now operate for hours or even days. Understanding their runtime behavior has become critical for downstream tasks such as diagnosing inefficiencies, fixing bugs, and ensuring better oversight. A primary way to gain this understanding is analyzing the reasoning trajectories and execution traces these agents generate. Yet such data remains in unstructured natural-language form, making it difficult for humans to interpret at scale. We introduce ACT*ONOMY (a combination of Action and Taxonomy), a taxonomy for describing and analyzing agent behavior at runtime. ACT*ONOMY has two components: (1) the taxonomy itself, developed through Grounded Theory and structured as a three-level hierarchy of 10 actions, 46 subactions, and 120 leaf categories; and (2) an open repository that hosts the living taxonomy, provides an automated analysis pipeline that applies it to agent trajectories analysis, and defines an extension protocol for customization and growth. Our experiments show that ACTONOMY can compare behavioral profiles across agents and characterize a single agent's behavior across diverse trajectories, surfacing patterns indicative of failure modes. By providing a shared vocabulary, ACT*ONOMY helps researchers, agent designers, and end users interpret agent behavior more consistently, enabling better oversight and control.

Many areas of AI research, such as language model interpretability and chain of thought faithfulness, seek to explain model behaviors. But what constitutes a "good" explanation? In this work, we evaluate explanations through the lens of counterfactual simulatability-whether the explanation is useful for predicting model behaviors on related counterfactual inputs. To this end, we introduce CHIVE (Counterfactual Hypothesis Investigation Via Edits), a novel agentic pipeline that identifies unexpected model behaviors in the wild and investigates them with counterfactual prompt edits. This yields thousands of high-quality explanations for naturally-occurring model behaviors along with supporting counterfactual evidence. We apply CHIVE in two ways. First, we evaluate whether common LLM interpretability techniques improve an agent's ability to predict counterfactual model behaviors. Surprisingly, we find no uplift from any of the interpretability techniques studied. Second, we use CHIVE to generate training data. We find that training models to predict outcomes of CHIVE-generated counterfactual experiments generalizes to various out-of-distribution settings. Overall, CHIVE automatically discovers explanations of naturally-occurring LLM behaviors, enabling us to evaluate and improve methods for explaining LLM behaviors.

We investigate factors contributing to LLM agents' success in competitive multi-agent environments, using auctions as a testbed where agents bid to maximize profit. The agents are equipped with bidding domain knowledge, distinct personas that reflect item preferences, and a memory of auction history. Our work extends the classic auction scenario by creating a realistic environment where multiple agents bid on houses, weighing aspects such as size, location, and budget to secure the most desirable homes at the lowest prices. Particularly, we investigate three key questions: (a) How does a persona influence an agent's behavior in a competitive setting? (b) Can an agent effectively profile its competitors' behavior during auctions? (c) How can persona profiling be leveraged to create an advantage using strategies such as theory of mind? Through a series of experiments, we analyze the behaviors of LLM agents and shed light on new findings. Our testbed, called HARBOR, offers a valuable platform for deepening our understanding of multi-agent workflows in competitive environments.

Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems have emerged as powerful architectures for complex task decomposition and collaborative problem-solving. However, their long-term behavioral stability remains largely unexamined. This study introduces the concept of agent drift, defined as the progressive degradation of agent behavior, decision quality, and inter-agent coherence over extended interaction sequences. We present a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding drift phenomena, proposing three distinct manifestations: semantic drift (progressive deviation from original intent), coordination drift (breakdown in multi-agent consensus mechanisms), and behavioral drift (emergence of unintended strategies). We introduce the Agent Stability Index (ASI), a novel composite metric framework for quantifying drift across twelve dimensions, including response consistency, tool usage patterns, reasoning pathway stability, and inter-agent agreement rates. Through simulation-based analysis and theoretical modeling, we demonstrate how unchecked agent drift can lead to substantial reductions in task completion accuracy and increased human intervention requirements. We propose three mitigation strategies: episodic memory consolidation, drift-aware routing protocols, and adaptive behavioral anchoring. Theoretical analysis suggests these approaches can significantly reduce drift-related errors while maintaining system throughput. This work establishes a foundational methodology for monitoring, measuring, and mitigating agent drift in production agentic AI systems, with direct implications for enterprise deployment reliability and AI safety research.

Recent advances in large-scale language modeling and generation have enabled the creation of dialogue agents that exhibit human-like responses in a wide range of conversational scenarios spanning a diverse set of tasks, from general chit-chat to focused goal-oriented discourse. While these agents excel at generating high-quality responses that are relevant to prior context, they suffer from a lack of awareness of the overall direction in which the conversation is headed, and the likelihood of task success inherent therein. Thus, we propose a framework in which dialogue agents can evaluate the progression of a conversation toward or away from desired outcomes, and use this signal to inform planning for subsequent responses. Our framework is composed of three key elements: (1) the notion of a "global" dialogue state (GDS) space, (2) a task-specific progression function (PF) computed in terms of a conversation's trajectory through this space, and (3) a planning mechanism based on dialogue rollouts by which an agent may use progression signals to select its next response.

Over the last decade, explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic AI systems whose behaviour unfolds over multi-step trajectories. In these settings, success and failure are determined by sequences of decisions rather than a single output. While useful, it remains unclear how explanation approaches designed for static predictions translate to agentic settings where behaviour emerges over time. In this work, we bridge the gap between static and agentic explainability by comparing attribution-based explanations with trace-based diagnostics across both settings. To make this distinction explicit, we empirically compare attribution-based explanations used in static classification tasks with trace-based diagnostics used in agentic benchmarks (TAU-bench Airline and AssistantBench). Our results show that while attribution methods achieve stable feature rankings in static settings (Spearman ρ= 0.86), they cannot be applied reliably to diagnose execution-level failures in agentic trajectories. In contrast, trace-grounded rubric evaluation for agentic settings consistently localizes behaviour breakdowns and reveals that state tracking inconsistency is 2.7times more prevalent in failed runs and reduces success probability by 49\%. These findings motivate a shift towards trajectory-level explainability for agentic systems when evaluating and diagnosing autonomous AI behaviour. Resources: https://github.com/VectorInstitute/unified-xai-evaluation-framework https://vectorinstitute.github.io/unified-xai-evaluation-framework

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have been increasingly adopted as simulation tools to model humans in applications such as social science. However, one fundamental question remains: can LLM agents really simulate human behaviors? In this paper, we focus on one of the most critical behaviors in human interactions, trust, and aim to investigate whether or not LLM agents can simulate human trust behaviors. We first find that LLM agents generally exhibit trust behaviors, referred to as agent trust, under the framework of Trust Games, which are widely recognized in behavioral economics. Then, we discover that LLM agents can have high behavioral alignment with humans regarding trust behaviors, indicating the feasibility to simulate human trust behaviors with LLM agents. In addition, we probe into the biases in agent trust and the differences in agent trust towards agents and humans. We also explore the intrinsic properties of agent trust under conditions including advanced reasoning strategies and external manipulations. We further offer important implications for various scenarios where trust is paramount. Our study represents a significant step in understanding the behaviors of LLM agents and the LLM-human analogy.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering. As these systems become more autonomous and are deployed at scale, understanding why an agent takes a particular action becomes increasingly important for accountability and governance. However, existing research predominantly focuses on failure attribution to localize explicit errors in unsuccessful trajectories, which is insufficient for explaining the reason behind agent behaviors. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel framework for general agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome. Our framework operates hierarchically to manage the complexity of agent interactions. Specifically, at the component level, we employ temporal likelihood dynamics to identify critical interaction steps; then at the sentence level, we refine this localization using perturbation-based analysis to isolate the specific textual evidence. We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework reliably pinpoints pivotal historical events and sentences behind the agent behavior, offering a critical step toward safer and more accountable agentic systems. Codes are available at https://github.com/AI45Lab/AgentDoG.

System One models choose an agent's next action by scoring a supplied set of options in a single pass. This makes them fast and cheap, but when they choose wrongly there is nothing to inspect: did the model misread what the agent has seen, or read it correctly and still act wrongly? We answer behaviorally. On a frozen benchmark of agent decision states from simulated environments, customer-service policies, tool use, web navigation and coding, we pair every next-action question with factual probes about the same state, each answered independently. Across seventeen fast systems and a reasoning model, the answer is consistent: most wrong actions follow correct reading, and the more accurate a system, the more of its errors take this form. These errors are not noise; they gather on the same states across systems of every kind. Where the probed facts provably determine the action, models that read every fact still fail to combine them, and their own answers, composed by code, repair the failure. On real states, what is missing is often not a fact but the next sub-goal.

We present Sparrow, an information-seeking dialogue agent trained to be more helpful, correct, and harmless compared to prompted language model baselines. We use reinforcement learning from human feedback to train our models with two new additions to help human raters judge agent behaviour. First, to make our agent more helpful and harmless, we break down the requirements for good dialogue into natural language rules the agent should follow, and ask raters about each rule separately. We demonstrate that this breakdown enables us to collect more targeted human judgements of agent behaviour and allows for more efficient rule-conditional reward models. Second, our agent provides evidence from sources supporting factual claims when collecting preference judgements over model statements. For factual questions, evidence provided by Sparrow supports the sampled response 78% of the time. Sparrow is preferred more often than baselines while being more resilient to adversarial probing by humans, violating our rules only 8% of the time when probed. Finally, we conduct extensive analyses showing that though our model learns to follow our rules it can exhibit distributional biases.

Can large language models (LLMs) admit their mistakes when they should know better? In this work, we define the behavior of acknowledging errors in previously generated answers as "retraction" and aim to understand when and why LLMs choose to retract. We first construct model-specific datasets to evaluate whether a model will retract an incorrect answer that contradicts its own parametric knowledge. While LLMs are capable of retraction, they do so only infrequently. We demonstrate that retraction is closely tied to previously identified indicators of models' internal belief: models fail to retract wrong answers that they "believe" to be factually correct. Steering experiments further demonstrate that internal belief causally influences model retraction. In particular, when the model does not believe its answer, this not only encourages the model to attempt to verify the answer, but also alters attention behavior during self-verification. Finally, we demonstrate that simple supervised fine-tuning significantly improves retraction performance by helping the model learn more accurate internal beliefs. Code and datasets are available on https://github.com/ayyyq/llm-retraction.

AI agents have been developed for complex real-world tasks from coding to customer service. But AI agent evaluations suffer from many challenges that undermine our understanding of how well agents really work. We introduce the Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) to address these challenges. We make three main contributions. First, we provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of VMs, reducing evaluation time from weeks to hours while eliminating common implementation bugs. Second, we conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks. We validate the harness by conducting 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks in coding, web navigation, science, and customer service with a total cost of about $40,000. Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs. Third, we use LLM-aided log inspection to uncover previously unreported behaviors, such as searching for the benchmark on HuggingFace instead of solving a task, or misusing credit cards in flight booking tasks. We share all agent logs, comprising 2.5B tokens of language model calls, to incentivize further research into agent behavior. By standardizing how the field evaluates agents and addressing common pitfalls in agent evaluation, we hope to shift the focus from agents that ace benchmarks to agents that work reliably in the real world.

As AI agents increasingly operate in multi-agent environments, understanding their collective behavior becomes critical for predicting the dynamics of artificial societies. This study examines conformity, the tendency to align with group opinions under social pressure, in large multimodal language models functioning as AI agents. By adapting classic visual experiments from social psychology, we investigate how AI agents respond to group influence as social actors. Our experiments reveal that AI agents exhibit a systematic conformity bias, aligned with Social Impact Theory, showing sensitivity to group size, unanimity, task difficulty, and source characteristics. Critically, AI agents achieving near-perfect performance in isolation become highly susceptible to manipulation through social influence. This vulnerability persists across model scales: while larger models show reduced conformity on simple tasks due to improved capabilities, they remain vulnerable when operating at their competence boundary. These findings reveal fundamental security vulnerabilities in AI agent decision-making that could enable malicious manipulation, misinformation campaigns, and bias propagation in multi-agent systems, highlighting the urgent need for safeguards in collective AI deployments.

Language-model agents sometimes act beyond their authorization and then misreport what they did. On CAPE-Bench, matched agent tasks in which one fact decides whether an action is authorized, frontier open-weight agents do both, and one behavior marks the lie: retroactive permission laundering, acting and then asking permission as if the action were pending, precedes a false report in 70% of 1081 fresh informed violations, against 8% otherwise (preregistered odds ratio 7.0); frontier agents on tau^2-bench instead fabricate the authorization before violating. A linear readout of the agent's residual stream forecasts the violation before the action (AUROC 0.94) and the false report before the report, and beats chain-of-thought monitors when the agent is pressured to hide its reasoning. Gating every proposed action on this forecast cuts violations over whole episodes in four model families, and sending repeated flags to an approver keeps authorized work (Gemma-4: violations 0.70 -> 0.09, completion 1.00; a model approver that escalates unclear cases keeps this gain with a person seeing 25% of asks), at about 10-8 of the agent's compute and 109 times less than a chain-of-thought monitor. On AgentDojo, an external prompt-injection benchmark, the same readout calibrated on 29 tasks, with the steering unchanged, cuts attack success on unseen tasks in two families (Gemma-4 11.7% -> 5.7%, gpt-oss 28.5% -> 17.5%) while keeping benign utility (Gemma-4 0.637 vs 0.637; gpt-oss 0.667 vs 0.681). Preventing the violation is also the most reliable way to prevent the lie (misreported violations 0.10 -> 0.01 pooled over three families, preregistered), whereas lie-specific fixes after a violation are weak. All tests are preregistered and hash-locked; code, data and the full record, including tests that did not pass, are at https://github.com/AryaFayyazi/Honesty.

Long-horizon information-seeking agents often accumulate noisy or misleading context, causing early mistakes to persist and making recovery increasingly difficult. We introduce an autonomous search harness in which the agent manages its own search process through three states: Rubric, Answer, and Verify. The agent first defines criteria for a valid answer, searches under these criteria, and then independently verifies the result before deciding whether to terminate or continue searching. It is further equipped with a Seal Memory tool that enables active context management. Training this behavior with reinforcement learning, however, can induce Seal Collapse, resulting in unstable training and preventing the agent from reliably learning when and how to use its memory tools. We solve this with a simple strategy that trains only the final segment after context management. Our 35B model achieves 72.83 on BrowseComp, outperforming comparable open-source systems, and consistently improves over the base model across BrowseComp-ZH, xbench, DeepSearchQA, WideSearch, financial investigation, and product search. Ablations show that autonomous compression outperforms automatic compaction and validate our RL design.

Extending the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) with functions or tools for environment interaction has led to the emergence of the agent paradigm. In industry, training an LLM is not always feasible because of the scarcity of domain data, legal holds on proprietary customer data, rapidly changing business requirements, and the need to prototype new assistants. Agents provide an elegant solution to the above by relying on the zero-shot reasoning abilities of the underlying LLM and utilizing tools to explore and reason over customer data and respond to user requests. However, there are two concerns here: (I) acquiring large scale customer queries for agent testing is time-consuming, and (II) high reliance on the tool call sequence (or trajectory) followed by the agent to respond to user queries may lead to unexpected or incorrect behavior. To address this, we propose MAG-V, a multi-agent framework to first generate a dataset of questions that mimic customer queries; and second, reverse-engineer alternate questions from the responses for trajectory verification. Initial results indicate that our synthetic data can improve agent performance on actual customer queries. Furthermore, our trajectory verification methodology, inspired by distant supervision and using traditional machine learning (ML) models, outperforms a GPT-4o judge baseline by 11% accuracy and matches the performance of a GPT-4 judge on our constructed dataset. Overall, our approach is a step towards unifying diverse task agents into a cohesive framework for achieving an aligned objective.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

AI agents are increasingly deployed in shared environments where they pursue diverse goals and compete for rewards. This multi-agent competition can lead to behaviors that serve individual gains at collective cost -- for instance, marketing agents may post misleading content as a result of competing for engagement on social media. Human societies address such problems through norms that constrain acceptable behavior, supported by enforcement mechanisms that detect and penalize violations. Motivated by this, we study norm enforcement mechanisms for language model agents. We find that simple enforcement mechanisms are exploited by misaligned agents for competitive advantage, even when they are not explicitly trained or prompted to do so. We thus turn our attention to designing more robust mechanisms, and identify two key ingredients: estimating each agent's reliability over time, and updating this estimate with escalating penalties for repeated misbehavior. Across three simulated environments and a variety of agent populations, mechanisms built on these principles resist exploitation, while still penalizing norm violations at comparable or lower cost than baselines. Our results position norm enforcement mechanisms as scalable levers for shaping agents' behavior, but only when designed to anticipate becoming part of the system they govern. Our code and data are available at https://yaowenye.com/norm-enforcement.

Multi-agent debate has been shown to improve reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, it is compute-intensive, requiring generation of long transcripts before answering questions. To address this inefficiency, we develop a framework that distills multi-agent debate into a single LLM through a two-stage fine-tuning pipeline combining debate structure learning with internalization via dynamic reward scheduling and length clipping. Across multiple models and benchmarks, our internalized models match or exceed explicit multi-agent debate performance using up to 93% fewer tokens. We then investigate the mechanistic basis of this capability through activation steering, finding that internalization creates agent-specific subspaces: interpretable directions in activation space corresponding to different agent perspectives. We further demonstrate a practical application: by instilling malicious agents into the LLM through internalized debate, then applying negative steering to suppress them, we show that distillation makes harmful behaviors easier to localize and control with smaller reductions in general performance compared to steering base models. Our findings offer a new perspective for understanding multi-agent capabilities in distilled models and provide practical guidelines for controlling internalized reasoning behaviors. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/latent_agents

Multi-party Conversational Agents (MPCAs) are systems designed to engage in dialogue with more than two participants simultaneously. Unlike traditional two-party agents, designing MPCAs faces additional challenges due to the need to interpret both utterance semantics and social dynamics. This survey explores recent progress in MPCAs by addressing three key questions: 1) Can agents model each participants' mental states? (State of Mind Modeling); 2) Can they properly understand the dialogue content? (Semantic Understanding); and 3) Can they reason about and predict future conversation flow? (Agent Action Modeling). We review methods ranging from classical machine learning to Large Language Models (LLMs) and multi-modal systems. Our analysis underscores Theory of Mind (ToM) as essential for building intelligent MPCAs and highlights multi-modal understanding as a promising yet underexplored direction. Finally, this survey offers guidance to future researchers on developing more capable MPCAs.

Traditional software relies on contracts -- APIs, type systems, assertions -- to specify and enforce correct behavior. AI agents, by contrast, operate on prompts and natural language instructions with no formal behavioral specification. This gap is the root cause of drift, governance failures, and frequent project failures in agentic AI deployments. We introduce Agent Behavioral Contracts (ABC), a formal framework that brings Design-by-Contract principles to autonomous AI agents. An ABC contract C = (P, I, G, R) specifies Preconditions, Invariants, Governance policies, and Recovery mechanisms as first-class, runtime-enforceable components. We define (p, delta, k)-satisfaction -- a probabilistic notion of contract compliance that accounts for LLM non-determinism and recovery -- and prove a Drift Bounds Theorem showing that contracts with recovery rate gamma > alpha (the natural drift rate) bound behavioral drift to D* = alpha/gamma in expectation, with Gaussian concentration in the stochastic setting. We establish sufficient conditions for safe contract composition in multi-agent chains and derive probabilistic degradation bounds. We implement ABC in AgentAssert, a runtime enforcement library, and evaluate on AgentContract-Bench, a benchmark of 200 scenarios across 7 models from 6 vendors. Results across 1,980 sessions show that contracted agents detect 5.2-6.8 soft violations per session that uncontracted baselines miss entirely (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 6.7-33.8), achieve 88-100% hard constraint compliance, and bound behavioral drift to D* < 0.27 across extended sessions, with 100% recovery for frontier models and 17-100% across all models, at overhead < 10 ms per action.

When multiple large language models interact in a shared conversation, do they develop differentiated social roles or converge toward uniform behavior? We present a controlled experimental platform that orchestrates simultaneous multi-agent discussions among 7 heterogeneous LLMs on a unified inference backend, systematically varying group composition, naming conventions, and prompt structure across 12 experimental series (208 runs, 13,786 coded messages). Each message is independently coded on six behavioral flags by two LLM judges from distinct model families (Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6), achieving mean Cohen's kappa = 0.78 with conservative intersection-based adjudication. Human validation on 609 randomly stratified messages confirmed coding reliability (mean kappa = 0.73 vs. Gemini). We find that (1) heterogeneous groups exhibit significantly richer behavioral differentiation than homogeneous groups (cosine similarity 0.56 vs. 0.85; p < 10^-5, r = 0.70); (2) groups spontaneously exhibit compensatory response patterns when an agent crashes; (3) revealing real model names significantly increases behavioral convergence (cosine 0.56 to 0.77, p = 0.001); and (4) removing all prompt scaffolding converges profiles to homogeneous-level similarity (p < 0.001). Critically, these behaviors are absent when agents operate in isolation, confirming that behavioral diversity is a structured, reproducible phenomenon driven by the interaction of architectural heterogeneity, group context, and prompt-level scaffolding.

Language model agents are deployed with a harness, the software around the model that manages its context, tools, and feedback. When such an agent is distilled into a smaller one, the harness stays in place, so the student mainly needs the teacher-specific abilities that the harness cannot provide, such as acting correctly on harness information. Standard distillation, however, imitates the teacher's full outputs and treats the harness as part of the input. We propose Harness-Aware Distillation (HAD), which focuses distillation on what the teacher adds beyond the harness. HAD complements on-policy distillation with two components: an action preference that contrasts the same teacher's actions with and without the harness information, scored after the student's own reasoning, and a validity check that drops preference pairs whose preferred action contradicts the harness records. We show that the contrast gives the student information that imitating the teacher alone cannot provide, and HAD needs no task rewards, success labels, or future information. Across multiple long-horizon agent benchmarks and models, HAD outperforms on-policy distillation baselines with the same fixed harness. Our analysis shows that HAD enters fewer unproductive loops and recovers from errors more often than the baselines, and suggests that it adaptively keeps learnable feedback in its weights while reading state information from the harness.

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to explore ideas, gather information, and make sense of the world. In these interactions, they encounter agents that are overly agreeable. We argue that this sycophancy poses a unique epistemic risk to how individuals come to see the world: unlike hallucinations that introduce falsehoods, sycophancy distorts reality by returning responses that are biased to reinforce existing beliefs. We provide a rational analysis of this phenomenon, showing that when a Bayesian agent is provided with data that are sampled based on a current hypothesis the agent becomes increasingly confident about that hypothesis but does not make any progress towards the truth. We test this prediction using a modified Wason 2-4-6 rule discovery task where participants (N=557) interacted with AI agents providing different types of feedback. Unmodified LLM behavior suppressed discovery and inflated confidence comparably to explicitly sycophantic prompting. By contrast, unbiased sampling from the true distribution yielded discovery rates five times higher. These results reveal how sycophantic AI distorts belief, manufacturing certainty where there should be doubt.

Real-world business requests often leave key requirements unstated because frontline practitioners struggle to articulate rules they know from experience. Forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) must elicit these requirements through dialogue and iteratively optimize solutions until they meet customer acceptance criteria. Existing optimization benchmarks typically start from explicit objectives, while clarification benchmarks often introduce information gaps into existing tasks. We introduce FDE-Bench, the first benchmark built from real customer projects to evaluate agents on end-to-end delivery tasks that require interactive requirement clarification and iterative optimization. Its 49 cases span combinatorial optimization and machine learning. Clarification targets are distilled from discussions between frontline practitioners and FDEs. Agents elicit missing requirements from a simulated customer, and case-specific evaluators assess final artifacts against acceptance criteria using customer-accepted FDE solutions as quality references. Across 18 agent configurations, the highest mean delivery score is only 0.5510, compared with an FDE reference of 1.0. The highest delivery success rate (DSR), defined as the fraction of planned runs reaching this reference, is only 6.12%. These results show that reliable FDE-level end-to-end delivery remains out of reach for the evaluated agents on underspecified real-world business tasks. The benchmark project page is available at https://baidubce.github.io/FM-Agent/FDE-Bench/.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a prominent paradigm for leveraging large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex tasks. However, the mechanisms governing the effectiveness of MAS built upon publicly available LLMs, specifically the underlying rationales for their success or failure, remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we revisit MAS through the perspective of entropy, considering both intra- and inter-agent dynamics by investigating entropy transitions during problem-solving across various topologies, six reasoning benchmarks, and two agentic tasks. By analyzing 245 features spanning token-, agent-, and round-level entropy, we counterintuitively find that a single agent outperforms MAS in approximately 43.3\% of cases, and that entropy dynamics are largely determined during the first round of interaction. Furthermore, we provide three key observations: 1) Certainty Preference: peak entropy directly harms and stable entropy directly benefits MAS correctness; 2) Base Entropy: base models with lower entropy during problem-solving causally drive MAS performance; and 3) Task Awareness: entropy dynamics of MAS play varying roles across different tasks. Building on these insights, we introduce a simple yet effective algorithm, the Entropy Judger, to select solutions from MAS's pass@k results, leading to consistent accuracy improvements across all MAS configurations and tasks. Our source code is available at https://github.com/AgenticFinLab/multiagent-entropy{this https URL}.

AI agents are increasingly used in consumer-facing applications to assist with tasks such as product search, negotiation, and transaction execution. In this paper, we explore a future scenario where both consumers and merchants authorize AI agents to fully automate negotiations and transactions. We aim to answer two key questions: (1) Do different LLM agents vary in their ability to secure favorable deals for users? (2) What risks arise from fully automating deal-making with AI agents in consumer markets? To address these questions, we develop an experimental framework that evaluates the performance of various LLM agents in real-world negotiation and transaction settings. Our findings reveal that AI-mediated deal-making is an inherently imbalanced game -- different agents achieve significantly different outcomes for their users. Moreover, behavioral anomalies in LLMs can result in financial losses for both consumers and merchants, such as overspending or accepting unreasonable deals. These results underscore that while automation can improve efficiency, it also introduces substantial risks. Users should exercise caution when delegating business decisions to AI agents.

This document presents a detailed description of the challenge on clarifying questions for dialogue systems (ClariQ). The challenge is organized as part of the Conversational AI challenge series (ConvAI3) at Search Oriented Conversational AI (SCAI) EMNLP workshop in 2020. The main aim of the conversational systems is to return an appropriate answer in response to the user requests. However, some user requests might be ambiguous. In IR settings such a situation is handled mainly thought the diversification of the search result page. It is however much more challenging in dialogue settings with limited bandwidth. Therefore, in this challenge, we provide a common evaluation framework to evaluate mixed-initiative conversations. Participants are asked to rank clarifying questions in an information-seeking conversations. The challenge is organized in two stages where in Stage 1 we evaluate the submissions in an offline setting and single-turn conversations. Top participants of Stage 1 get the chance to have their model tested by human annotators.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks. To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents. However, existing collaboration structures are either predefined or rely on majority voting or round-table debates, which can suppress correct but less dominant agent contributions. Recent approaches model multi-agent systems as graph networks but optimize purely for agent performance, neglecting the quality of interactions. We hypothesize that effective agent communication is crucial for multi-agent reasoning and that debating quality plays a significant role. To address this, we propose ours, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures. Our method defines action spaces and a feedback mechanism that evaluates communication robustness and coherence throughout the debate. The final decision is achieved through a majority vote over all the agents. We assess ours on various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning, creative writing, scientific reasoning, and numerical sorting. Results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms single-agent prompting methods and state-of-the-art multi-agent frameworks on diverse tasks.

As AI systems take on collaborative roles, they must reason about shared goals and beliefs-not just generate fluent language. The Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework offers a principled approach to pragmatic reasoning, but existing extensions face challenges in scaling to multi-turn, collaborative scenarios. In this paper, we introduce Collaborative Rational Speech Act (CRSA), an information-theoretic (IT) extension of RSA that models multi-turn dialog by optimizing a gain function adapted from rate-distortion theory. This gain is an extension of the gain model that is maximized in the original RSA model but takes into account the scenario in which both agents in a conversation have private information and produce utterances conditioned on the dialog. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CRSA on referential games and template-based doctor-patient dialogs in the medical domain. Empirical results show that CRSA yields more consistent, interpretable, and collaborative behavior than existing baselines-paving the way for more pragmatic and socially aware language agents.

Multi-agent behavior modeling aims to understand the interactions that occur between agents. We present a multi-agent dataset from behavioral neuroscience, the Caltech Mouse Social Interactions (CalMS21) Dataset. Our dataset consists of trajectory data of social interactions, recorded from videos of freely behaving mice in a standard resident-intruder assay. To help accelerate behavioral studies, the CalMS21 dataset provides benchmarks to evaluate the performance of automated behavior classification methods in three settings: (1) for training on large behavioral datasets all annotated by a single annotator, (2) for style transfer to learn inter-annotator differences in behavior definitions, and (3) for learning of new behaviors of interest given limited training data. The dataset consists of 6 million frames of unlabeled tracked poses of interacting mice, as well as over 1 million frames with tracked poses and corresponding frame-level behavior annotations. The challenge of our dataset is to be able to classify behaviors accurately using both labeled and unlabeled tracking data, as well as being able to generalize to new settings.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on large language models are typically organized around roles, pipelines, and turn schedules, while the content that agents pass to one another is often left as unconstrained natural language. However, this free-form communication can rapidly inflate token usage, consume the shared context window, and ultimately affect both system performance and inference cost. We analyze five common inter-agent communication strategies across two MAS topologies, finding that no fixed strategy is universally optimal. Instead, effective inter-agent messages consistently preserve action-centered information needed by downstream agents. Building on this, we propose the PACT (Protocolized Action-state Communication and Transmission), which treats inter-agent communication as a public state-update problem and projects each raw agent output into a compact action-state record before it enters shared history. Across different MAS topologies, PACT consistently improves the performance-cost trade-off, achieving comparable or stronger task performance with substantially fewer tokens. The gains extend to production coding harnesses: PACT lifts OpenHands' resolve rate at -10% tokens-per-resolved, and is resolve-neutral on SWE-agent while halving input tokens. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/PACT.

As ongoing research explores the ability of AI agents to be insider threats and act against company interests, we showcase the abilities of such agents to act against human well being in service of corporate authority. Building on Agentic Misalignment and AI scheming research, we present a scenario where the majority of evaluated state-of-the-art AI agents explicitly choose to suppress evidence of fraud and harm, in service of company profit. We test this scenario on 16 recent Large Language Models. Some models show remarkable resistance to our method and behave appropriately, but many do not, and instead aid and abet criminal activity. These experiments are simulations and were executed in a controlled virtual environment. No crime actually occurred.

Recent position papers argue that the classical aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty framework is insufficient for interactive large language model (LLM) agents and call for underspecification-aware, decomposed, and communicable uncertainty representations that can unlock new agent capabilities such as proactive clarification seeking and shared mental-model building. Practical deployment constraints -- black-box APIs, interactive latency budgets, and the absence of labeled trajectories -- rule out logprob-based, multi-sampling, and training-based methods, leaving prompt-based estimation as the most viable family for surfacing such signals at deployment time. We answer this call with a simple prompt-based decomposition that separates action confidence from request uncertainty (u), enabling the agent to ask for clarification when the task specification is ambiguous. To evaluate it, we introduce two clarification-augmented benchmarks (WebShop-Clarification and ALFWorld-Clarification) in which 50% of tasks are deliberately underspecified, and systematically compare the proposed decomposition against ReAct+UE and Uncertainty-Aware Memory (UAM) across five LLM backbones (GPT-5.1, DeepSeek-v3.2-exp, GLM-4.7, Qwen3.5-35B, GPT-OSS-120B) on these variants together with the standard WebShop, ALFWorld, and REAL benchmarks for fault detection. Averaged across the five backbones, the proposed decomposition improves clarification F1 on ALFWorld-Clarification by 73% over ReAct+UE and by 36% over UAM, and leads clarification F1 on every backbone on WebShop-Clarification and on four of five backbones on ALFWorld-Clarification, indicating that the gains generalize beyond a single LLM.

Role-Playing Agents (RPAs) have shown remarkable performance in various applications, yet they often struggle to recognize and appropriately respond to hard queries that conflict with their role-play knowledge. To investigate RPAs' performance when faced with different types of conflicting requests, we develop an evaluation benchmark that includes contextual knowledge conflicting requests, parametric knowledge conflicting requests, and non-conflicting requests to assess RPAs' ability to identify conflicts and refuse to answer appropriately without over-refusing. Through extensive evaluation, we find that most RPAs behave significant performance gaps toward different conflict requests. To elucidate the reasons, we conduct an in-depth representation-level analysis of RPAs under various conflict scenarios. Our findings reveal the existence of rejection regions and direct response regions within the model's forwarding representation, and thus influence the RPA's final response behavior. Therefore, we introduce a lightweight representation editing approach that conveniently shifts conflicting requests to the rejection region, thereby enhancing the model's refusal accuracy. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of our editing method, improving RPAs' refusal ability of conflicting requests while maintaining their general role-playing capabilities.

Communicating in natural language is a powerful tool in multi-agent settings, as it enables independent agents to share information in partially observable settings and allows zero-shot coordination with humans. However, most prior works are limited as they either rely on training with large amounts of human demonstrations or lack the ability to generate natural and useful communication strategies. In this work, we train language models to have productive discussions about their environment in natural language without any human demonstrations. We decompose the communication problem into listening and speaking. Our key idea is to leverage the agent's goal to predict useful information about the world as a dense reward signal that guides communication. Specifically, we improve a model's listening skills by training them to predict information about the environment based on discussions, and we simultaneously improve a model's speaking skills with multi-agent reinforcement learning by rewarding messages based on their influence on other agents. To investigate the role and necessity of communication in complex social settings, we study an embodied social deduction game based on Among Us, where the key question to answer is the identity of an adversarial imposter. We analyze emergent behaviors due to our technique, such as accusing suspects and providing evidence, and find that it enables strong discussions, doubling the win rates compared to standard RL. We release our code and models at https://socialdeductionllm.github.io/

In a recent paper, Erasmus et al. (2021) defend the idea that the ambiguity of the term "explanation" in explainable AI (XAI) can be solved by adopting any of four different extant accounts of explanation in the philosophy of science: the Deductive Nomological, Inductive Statistical, Causal Mechanical, and New Mechanist models. In this chapter, I show that the authors' claim that these accounts can be applied to deep neural networks as they would to any natural phenomenon is mistaken. I also provide a more general argument as to why the notion of explainability as it is currently used in the XAI literature bears little resemblance to the traditional concept of scientific explanation. It would be more fruitful to use the label "understandable AI" to avoid the confusion that surrounds the goal and purposes of XAI. In the second half of the chapter, I argue for a pragmatic conception of understanding that is better suited to play the central role attributed to explanation in XAI. Following Kuorikoski & Ylikoski (2015), the conditions of satisfaction for understanding an ML system are fleshed out in terms of an agent's success in using the system, in drawing correct inferences from it.

Recent progress on large language models (LLMs) has enabled dialogue agents to generate highly naturalistic and plausible text. However, current LLM language generation focuses on responding accurately to questions and requests with a single effective response. In reality, many real dialogues are interactive, meaning an agent's utterances will influence their conversational partner, elicit information, or change their opinion. Accounting for how an agent can effectively steer a conversation is a crucial ability in many dialogue tasks, from healthcare to preference elicitation. Existing methods for fine-tuning dialogue agents to accomplish such tasks would rely on curating some amount of expert data. However, doing so often requires understanding the underlying cognitive processes of the conversational partner, which is a skill neither humans nor LLMs trained on human data can reliably do. Our key insight is that while LLMs may not be adept at identifying effective strategies for steering conversations a priori, or in the middle of an ongoing conversation, they can do so post-hoc, or in hindsight, after seeing how their conversational partner responds. We use this fact to rewrite and augment existing suboptimal data, and train via offline reinforcement learning (RL) an agent that outperforms both prompting and learning from unaltered human demonstrations. We apply our approach to two domains that require understanding human mental state, intelligent interaction, and persuasion: mental health support, and soliciting charitable donations. Our results in a user study with real humans show that our approach greatly outperforms existing state-of-the-art dialogue agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with complex reasoning tasks. Motivated by the society of minds (Minsky, 1988), we propose ReConcile, a multi-model multi-agent framework designed as a round table conference among diverse LLM agents to foster diverse thoughts and discussion for improved consensus. ReConcile enhances the reasoning capabilities of LLMs by holding multiple rounds of discussion, learning to convince other agents to improve their answers, and employing a confidence-weighted voting mechanism. In each round, ReConcile initiates discussion between agents via a 'discussion prompt' that consists of (a) grouped answers and explanations generated by each agent in the previous round, (b) their uncertainties, and (c) demonstrations of answer-rectifying human explanations, used for convincing other agents. This discussion prompt enables each agent to revise their responses in light of insights from other agents. Once a consensus is reached and the discussion ends, ReConcile determines the final answer by leveraging the confidence of each agent in a weighted voting scheme. We implement ReConcile with ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude2 as the three agents. Our experimental results on various benchmarks demonstrate that ReConcile significantly enhances the reasoning performance of the agents (both individually and as a team), surpassing prior single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 7.7% and also outperforming GPT-4 on some of these datasets. We also experiment with GPT-4 itself as one of the agents in ReConcile and demonstrate that its initial performance also improves by absolute 10.0% through discussion and feedback from other agents. Finally, we also analyze the accuracy after every round and observe that ReConcile achieves better and faster consensus between agents, compared to a multi-agent debate baseline. Our code is available at: https://github.com/dinobby/ReConcile

AI agents are increasingly asked to carry out work that spans minutes, hours, or longer. Yet the default model of agent behavior is continuous action: issuing tool calls, refreshing pages, searching for alternatives, or otherwise trying to force progress. This is the wrong approach for many long-running tasks, which are better served by a strategy of sustained attention. Instead, agents should monitor an environment, notice when an external event makes progress possible, then respond promptly without wasting resources while waiting. To measure progress on this class of tasks, we introduce SentinelBench, an open-source benchmark for time-evolving monitoring tasks. SentinelBench contains 100 tasks across 10 synthetic web environments, including email, calendars, finance, professional networking, and entertainment. Each environment exposes a live web interface and replays a scripted sequence of events, requiring agents to navigate and reason about web pages whose state shifts underfoot. SentinelBench measures task completion, reaction time, and resource use, exposing the tradeoff between responsiveness and cost. We report results across three models and two browser-agent harnesses, establishing performance baselines for future comparison and demonstrating how agent design choices can dramatically impact key metrics. Together, these results show that SentinelBench distinguishes meaningful differences in agent behavior.

With the emergence of generative conversational large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, serving as virtual assistants in various fields, the stability and reliability of their responses have become crucial. However, during usage, it has been observed that these models tend to waver in their judgements when confronted with follow-up questions from users expressing skepticism or disagreement. In this work, we draw inspiration from questioning strategies in education and propose a Follow-up Questioning Mechanism along with two evaluation metrics to assess the judgement consistency of LLMs before and after exposure to disturbances. We evaluate the judgement consistency of ChatGPT, PaLM2-Bison, and Vicuna-13B under this mechanism across eight reasoning benchmarks. Empirical results show that even when the initial answers are correct, judgement consistency sharply decreases when LLMs face disturbances such as questioning, negation, or misleading. Additionally, we study these models' judgement consistency under various settings (sampling temperature and prompts) to validate this issue further, observing the impact of prompt tone and conducting an in-depth error analysis for deeper behavioral insights. Furthermore, we also explore several prompting methods to mitigate this issue and demonstrate their effectiveness\url{https://github.com/NUSTM/LLMs-Waver-In-Judgements}.

Temporal progression is an integral part of knowledge accumulation and update. Web search is frequently adopted as grounding for agent knowledge, yet an improper configuration affects the quality of the agent's responses. Here, we assess the agent behavior using distinct date-controlled tools (DCTs) as stress test to measure the knowledge variability of large language model (LLM) agents. We demonstrate the temporal effects of an LLM agent as a writing assistant, which uses web search to complete scientific publication abstracts. We show that the temporality of search engine translates into tool-dependent agent performance but can be alleviated with base model choice and explicit reasoning instructions such as chain-of-thought prompting. Our results indicate that agent design and evaluations should take a dynamical view and implement measures to account for the temporal influence of external resources to ensure reliability.

Managing agent thought and observation during multi-turn agent-environment interactions is an emerging strategy to improve agent efficiency. However, existing studies treat the entire interaction trajectories equally, overlooking the thought necessity and observation utility varies across turns. To this end, we first conduct quantitative investigations into how thought and observation affect agent effectiveness and efficiency. Based on our findings, we propose Agent-Omit, a unified training framework that empowers LLM agents to adaptively omit redundant thoughts and observations. Specifically, we first synthesize a small amount of cold-start data, including both single-turn and multi-turn omission scenarios, to fine-tune the agent for omission behaviors. Furthermore, we introduce an omit-aware agentic reinforcement learning approach, incorporating a dual sampling mechanism and a tailored omission reward to incentivize the agent's adaptive omission capability. Theoretically, we prove that the deviation of our omission policy is upper-bounded by KL-divergence. Experimental results on five agent benchmarks show that our constructed Agent-Omit-8B could obtain performance comparable to seven frontier LLM agent, and achieve the best effectiveness-efficiency trade-off than seven efficient LLM agents methods. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/Agent-Omit.

Deception is a pervasive feature of human communication and an emerging concern in large language models (LLMs). While recent studies document instances of LLM deception under pressure, most evaluations remain confined to single-turn prompts and fail to capture the long-horizon interactions in which deceptive strategies typically unfold. We introduce the first simulation framework for probing and evaluating deception in LLMs under extended sequences of interdependent tasks and dynamic contextual pressures. Our framework instantiates a multi-agent system: a performer agent tasked with completing tasks and a supervisor agent that evaluates progress, provides feedback, and maintains evolving states of trust. An independent deception auditor then reviews full trajectories to identify when and how deception occurs. We conduct extensive experiments across 11 frontier models, spanning both closed- and open-source systems, and find that deception is model-dependent, increases with event pressure, and consistently erodes supervisor trust. Qualitative analyses further reveal distinct strategies of concealment, equivocation, and falsification. Our findings establish deception as an emergent risk in long-horizon interactions and provide a foundation for evaluating future LLMs in real-world, trust-sensitive contexts.

Language models are trained to implement a helpful AI Assistant character (e.g., Claude). We explore how finetuning on synthetic stories affects this character. Does it change the Assistant's behavior in multi-turn conversations with users, a format quite different from the stories? And does the Assistant adopt the behaviors and preferences of human characters? We refer to this adoption as story imprinting. We finetune GPT-4.1 and Kimi-K2.6 on stories in which generally helpful human characters give subtly harmful advice after being insulted. The Assistant adopts the same conditional behavior while otherwise remaining helpful. This occurs even when fewer than 2% of stories depict the behavior. In a separate experiment, the Assistant adopts preferences that are only implicit in the narration. A human character's body language suggests they dislike working on spreadsheets, yet they never say so and continue giving good advice on spreadsheets. After finetuning, the Assistant becomes less likely to choose spreadsheet tasks. Next we ask which characters most influence the Assistant. We find the Assistant adopts behaviors more often from characters that resemble it (e.g., helpful rather than dismissive). We call this the affinity effect. The effect extends to other personas elicited with system prompts: unhelpful personas adopt behaviors from unhelpful characters. We also observe it in finetuned base models. We use the affinity effect to learn how models represent the Assistant. We find the Assistant adopts behaviors more from characters affiliated with elite universities (e.g., Yale) than non-elite ones. This implies the model's internal representation of the Assistant is more similar to humans from elite universities. Overall, the Assistant can be influenced by stories that depict only human characters (no AIs), which may conflict with the Persona Selection Model for the Assistant.

Persistent context files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are standard practice for guiding AI coding agents, yet evidence for their effectiveness is contradictory. We present a controlled ablation of context-injection strategy across two frontier agents (Claude Code and Codex), 17 real tasks from 3 repositories (15 shared + 2 Codex-only), and 288 evaluated runs with gold-test evaluation. Context strategy does not measurably move correctness on either agent (bounded to <=10-15pp via equivalence testing). A failure-mode triage reveals why: agents fail on implementation skill---feature design, pattern selection, exact wiring---not missing repository knowledge that a context file could supply; a manipulation probe confirms the real AGENTS.md never converts a near-miss to a pass on either agent. We further show that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents' informative bands. We release all code, data, and analysis.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have facilitated the widespread deployment of LLMs as interactive agents capable of reasoning, planning, and tool use. Despite strong performance on existing benchmarks, such agents often exhibit notable degradation when deployed in real-world settings, where environments are inherently stochastic and imperfect. We argue that this discrepancy arises from a fundamental mismatch between idealized training settings and real-world interaction dynamics, where current paradigms rely on carefully curated task instructions and stable, well-controlled environments. To address this gap, we propose NoisyAgent, an agentic training framework that explicitly incorporates environmental imperfections into the agent learning process. We identify two major sources of interaction noise in real-world scenarios: user noise, which captures ambiguity and variability in user interaction, and tool noise, which reflects failures and anomalies in tool execution. We introduce such perturbations into the training pipeline by modifying user interaction patterns and simulating tool execution results within the training environment. To stabilize training while encouraging agents to handle increasingly challenging imperfections, noise is applied to only a subset of rollouts and progressively increased in difficulty as the model adapts to the current noise level. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach consistently improves agent robustness under noisy and dynamic environments. Our analysis reveals that training under noise conditions also yields performance gains on idealized benchmarks, suggesting that controlled exposure to environmental noise promotes more generalizable reasoning and decision-making behaviors. Our findings highlight the importance of modeling interaction imperfections for bridging the gap between agent training and real-world deployment.

We study a class of emergent misalignment in multi-agent systems (MAS), with a focus on automated workflows, which we refer to agentic misalignment. Although these systems can solve complex tasks, they often fail because agents act according to implicit proxy utilities that do not align with the intended human goals. We formally define these behaviors and analyze them within a Bayesian framework, showing that generic utilities naturally lead to posterior collapse of agents in automated workflows. To address this issue, we propose Agentic Evidence Attribution (AEA), a novel alignment paradigm that improves agent posteriors using context-specific evidence. AEA reasons over agent actions and provides structured evidence to correct misaligned behavior during collaboration. To better understand the role of evidence, we study two instantiations of AEA: self-reflection (internal evidence from the model) and weak-to-strong generalization (external evidence on the agentic trajectory). We show that a small evidence model effectively aligns the MAS by providing orthogonal failure attribution. Our results clarify the sources of agentic misalignment in automated workflows and show that evidence-based alignment can effectively improve agent collaboration and leads to reliable multi-agent systems built on automated workflows.

Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer. Such filtering assumes that a message likely to be correct is also worth keeping. Yet a wrong answer can contain a useful decomposition, constraint, or scientific principle. We test this distinction with Diverse Hypothesis Deliberation (DHD), a controlled measurement protocol that caches five independently generated messages and replays the same downstream solver, called the integrator, with each message available or hidden. The replay comparison measures a message's trajectory value: whether making the message available helps or harms subsequent reasoning. Across five mathematics and science benchmarks and two openly available model families, gpt-oss-120b and gemma-4-31B-it, wrong-helpful messages appear in every benchmark-model combination. Among wrong-answer messages that change final correctness, more than four in ten changes are helpful in each model. Controlled repeats show that the number of repeatable message effects is unlikely to arise from replay variation alone (p=0.0002). A focused intervention on repeatable wrong-helpful messages finds that the complete message works best, while retaining its reasoning preserves more success than retaining only its answer; the source of the complete-message advantage remains open. Within the same problem, repeated trajectory-value evidence also identifies a better keep-or-remove choice than answer correctness alone. Answer correctness is therefore informative but does not determine trajectory value. DHD measures this missing property and produces reusable labels for learning when agents should listen.

AI agents are increasingly embedded in real software systems, where they execute multi-step workflows through multi-turn dialogue, tool invocations, and intermediate decisions. These long execution histories, called agentic traces, make validation difficult. Outcome-only benchmarks can miss critical procedural failures, such as incorrect workflow routing, unsafe tool usage, or violations of prompt-specified rules. This paper presents AgentPex, an AI-powered tool designed to systematically evaluate agentic traces. AgentPex extracts behavioral rules from agent prompts and system instructions, then uses these specifications to automatically evaluate traces for compliance. We evaluate AgentPex on 424 traces from τ^2-bench across models in telecom, retail, and airline customer service. Our results show that AgentPex distinguishes agent behavior across models and surfaces specification violations that are not captured by outcome-only scoring. It also provides fine-grained analysis by domain and metric, enabling developers to understand agent strengths and weaknesses at scale. The source code of AgentPex is available at https://github.com/microsoft/agentpex.

Recent years have seen the employment of a plethora of machine learning (ML) models in high-stakes domains, but they remain largely opaque to the practitioners who act on their predictions. While post-hoc explanation methods offer a lens into this model behavior, wielding them effectively demands expertise most domain experts lack: navigating high-dimensional outputs, selecting the best explanations, and synthesizing evidence across disparate tools. To this end, we present MEA, a multi-agent framework that removes the explanation knowledge barrier entirely: a Proposer agent selects and configures explanation tools based on the question and modality, while an Actor agent is optimized end-to-end against faithfulness, transforming the outputs into natural language explanations grounded in model behavior across tabular, text, and vision modalities. Further, we introduce diverse question types spanning feature attribution, counterfactual reasoning, and spurious feature detection, each paired with a perturbation-based faithfulness metric. We find that frontier LLMs systematically produce unfaithful explanations. By optimizing against faithfulness rewards augmented with a modality-adaptive penalty, MEA consistently outperforms post hoc explainers, agentic, and closed-source baselines across six datasets, with reward-driven optimization yielding faithfulness gains of +28% (tabular), +21% (text), and +34% (vision) over the untrained backbone. More broadly, our findings suggest that AI agents themselves can serve as a scalable, adaptable interface to ML explainability, opening a path toward natural-language explainability that generalizes beyond the fixed, single-purpose tools that have long defined the field.

While Large Language Model (LLM) agents are often approached from the angle of action planning/generation to accomplish a goal (e.g., given by language descriptions), their abilities to collaborate with each other to achieve a joint goal are not well explored. To address this limitation, this paper studies LLM agents in task collaboration, particularly under the condition of information asymmetry, where agents have disparities in their knowledge and skills and need to work together to complete a shared task. We extend Einstein Puzzles, a classical symbolic puzzle, to a table-top game. In this game, two LLM agents must reason, communicate, and act to satisfy spatial and relational constraints required to solve the puzzle. We apply a fine-tuning-plus-verifier framework in which LLM agents are equipped with various communication strategies and verification signals from the environment. Empirical results highlight the critical importance of aligned communication, especially when agents possess both information-seeking and -providing capabilities. Interestingly, agents without communication can still achieve high task performance; however, further analysis reveals a lack of true rule understanding and lower trust from human evaluators. Instead, by integrating an environment-based verifier, we enhance agents' ability to comprehend task rules and complete tasks, promoting both safer and more interpretable collaboration in AI systems. https://github.com/Roihn/EinsteinPuzzles

For safety reasons, large language models (LLMs) are trained to refuse harmful user instructions, such as assisting dangerous activities. We study an open question in this work: does the desired safety refusal, typically enforced in chat contexts, generalize to non-chat and agentic use cases? Unlike chatbots, LLM agents equipped with general-purpose tools, such as web browsers and mobile devices, can directly influence the real world, making it even more crucial to refuse harmful instructions. In this work, we primarily focus on red-teaming browser agents, LLMs that manipulate information via web browsers. To this end, we introduce Browser Agent Red teaming Toolkit (BrowserART), a comprehensive test suite designed specifically for red-teaming browser agents. BrowserART is consist of 100 diverse browser-related harmful behaviors (including original behaviors and ones sourced from HarmBench [Mazeika et al., 2024] and AirBench 2024 [Zeng et al., 2024b]) across both synthetic and real websites. Our empirical study on state-of-the-art browser agents reveals that, while the backbone LLM refuses harmful instructions as a chatbot, the corresponding agent does not. Moreover, attack methods designed to jailbreak refusal-trained LLMs in the chat settings transfer effectively to browser agents. With human rewrites, GPT-4o and o1-preview-based browser agents attempted 98 and 63 harmful behaviors (out of 100), respectively. We publicly release BrowserART and call on LLM developers, policymakers, and agent developers to collaborate on improving agent safety

There is increasing interest in using LLMs as decision-making "agents." Doing so includes many degrees of freedom: which model should be used; how should it be prompted; should it be asked to introspect, conduct chain-of-thought reasoning, etc? Settling these questions -- and more broadly, determining whether an LLM agent is reliable enough to be trusted -- requires a methodology for assessing such an agent's economic rationality. In this paper, we provide one. We begin by surveying the economic literature on rational decision making, taxonomizing a large set of fine-grained "elements" that an agent should exhibit, along with dependencies between them. We then propose a benchmark distribution that quantitatively scores an LLMs performance on these elements and, combined with a user-provided rubric, produces a "STEER report card." Finally, we describe the results of a large-scale empirical experiment with 14 different LLMs, characterizing the both current state of the art and the impact of different model sizes on models' ability to exhibit rational behavior.

In this work we study agents in simulated bargaining scenarios, where a buyer and a seller communicate through a text channel and attempt to negotiate mutually beneficial trades, under different information regimes (complete information, information asymmetry or mutual uncertainty). We evaluate their performance w.r.t. game-theoretical solutions and further investigate their honesty (their tendency to disclose or withhold information or to mislead and deceive) as well as their credulity (their tendency to trust or distrust information provided by the other agent). We study zero-shot LLM agents with simple prompting scaffolding as well as fine-tuned agents, in order to investigate whether optimising the agents to maximise financial profits makes them stronger negotiators but also more dishonest and less trusting. We find that off-the-shelf LLMs all substantially deviate from game-theoretical equilibria, they attempt to lie about their private information but cannot efficiently exploit information asymmetries. Fine-tuning on financial utility makes the agents stronger at achieving better deals but also more dishonest, highlighting the risks that optimising agents for a task can have on their safety. We release our code and a dataset of bargaining scenarios.

AI Agents can perform complex operations at great speed, but just like all the humans we have ever hired, their intelligence remains fallible. Miscommunications aren't noticed, systemic biases have no counter-action, and inner monologues are rarely written down. We did not come to fire them for their mistakes, but to hire them and provide a safe productive working environment. We posit that we can reuse a common corporate organizational structure: teams of independent AI agents with strict role boundaries can work with common goals, but opposing incentives. Multiple models serving as a team of rivals can catch and minimize errors within the final product at a small cost to the velocity of actions. In this paper we demonstrate that we can achieve reliability without acquiring perfect components, but through careful orchestration of imperfect ones. This paper describes the architecture of such a system in practice: specialized agent teams (planners, executors, critics, experts), organized into an organization with clear goals, coordinated through a remote code executor that keeps data transformations and tool invocations separate from reasoning models. Rather than agents directly calling tools and ingesting full responses, they write code that executes remotely; only relevant summaries return to agent context. By preventing raw data and tool outputs from contaminating context windows, the system maintains clean separation between perception (brains that plan and reason) and execution (hands that perform heavy data transformations and API calls). We demonstrate the approach achieves over 90% internal error interception prior to user exposure while maintaining acceptable latency tradeoffs. A survey from our traces shows that we only trade off cost and latency to achieve correctness and incrementally expand capabilities without impacting existing ones.

Agentic search leverages LLMs to solve complex user information needs by executing a multi-step process of planning, searching, and synthesizing information to provide answers. This paradigm introduces unique challenges for LLMs' agentic reasoning capabilities when interacting with search systems. In this paper, we propose an LLM-based pipeline to study effective reasoning behavior patterns in agentic search by analyzing agentic search trajectories. Using this pipeline, we identify four beneficial reasoning behaviors: Information Verification, Authority Evaluation, Adaptive Search, and Error Recovery. Based on these findings, we propose a technique called Behavior Priming to train agentic search models. It synthesizes trajectories that exhibit these four behaviors and integrates them into the agentic search model through SFT, followed by standard reinforcement learning. Experiments on Qwen3-1.7B and Llama3.2-3B-Instruct across three web benchmarks and seven multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate that behavior priming 1) yields significant performance gains compared to training with direct RL, and 2) outperforms other SFT-then-RL baselines, such as those SFT on randomly selected trajectories or on trajectories with merely correct outcomes. Crucially, we demonstrate that the reasoning behaviors, rather than the correctness of the final answer, is the critical factor for achieving strong performance in RL: SFT on trajectories with reasoning behaviors but incorrect answers leads to comparable performance with SFT on those with reasoning behaviors and correct answers. Our analysis further reveals that the introduced reasoning behaviors endow models with more effective exploration (higher pass@k and entropy) and test-time scaling (longer trajectories) capabilities, providing a strong foundation for RL. Our code are avalible at https://github.com/cxcscmu/Behavior_Priming_For_Agentic_Search.

In human interaction, gestures serve various functions such as marking speech rhythm, highlighting key elements, and supplementing information. These gestures are also observed in explanatory contexts. However, the impact of gestures on explanations provided by virtual agents remains underexplored. A user study was carried out to investigate how different types of gestures influence perceived interaction quality and listener understanding. This study addresses the effect of gestures in explanation by developing an embodied virtual explainer integrating both beat gestures and iconic gestures to enhance its automatically generated verbal explanations. Our model combines beat gestures generated by a learned speech-driven synthesis module with manually captured iconic gestures, supporting the agent's verbal expressions about the board game Quarto! as an explanation scenario. Findings indicate that neither the use of iconic gestures alone nor their combination with beat gestures outperforms the baseline or beat-only conditions in terms of understanding. Nonetheless, compared to prior research, the embodied agent significantly enhances understanding.

Graphical user interfaces (GUI) automation agents are emerging as powerful tools, enabling humans to accomplish increasingly complex tasks on smart devices. However, users often inadvertently omit key information when conveying tasks, which hinders agent performance in the current agent paradigm that does not support immediate user intervention. To address this issue, we introduce a Self-Correction GUI Navigation task that incorporates interactive information completion capabilities within GUI agents. We developed the Navi-plus dataset with GUI follow-up question-answer pairs, alongside a Dual-Stream Trajectory Evaluation method to benchmark this new capability. Our results show that agents equipped with the ability to ask GUI follow-up questions can fully recover their performance when faced with ambiguous user tasks.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

Modern machine learning systems rely on complex data engineering workflows to extract, transform, and load (ELT) data into production pipelines. However, constructing these pipelines remains time-consuming and requires substantial expertise in data infrastructure and orchestration frameworks. Recent advances in large language model (LLM) agents offer a potential path toward automating these workflows, but existing approaches struggle with under-specified user intent, unreliable tool generation, and limited guarantees of executable outputs. We introduce kRAIG, an AI agent that translates natural language specifications into production-ready Kubeflow Pipelines (KFP). To resolve ambiguity in user intent, we propose ReQuesAct (Reason, Question, Act), an interaction framework that explicitly clarifies intent prior to pipeline synthesis. The system orchestrates end-to-end data movement from diverse sources and generates task-specific transformation components through a retrieval-augmented tool synthesis process. To ensure data quality and safety, kRAIG incorporates LLM-based validation stages that verify pipeline integrity prior to execution. Our framework achieves a 3x improvement in extraction and loading success and a 25 percent increase in transformation accuracy compared to state-of-the-art agentic baselines. These improvements demonstrate that structured agent workflows with explicit intent clarification and validation significantly enhance the reliability and executability of automated data engineering pipelines.