Daily Papers

Despite rapid progress in LLM agents, performance on long-horizon, tool-using tasks remains fragile. To better understand this fragility, we ask a simple question: do all actions contribute equally to failure? Analyzing execution traces on τ-Bench (Airline/Retail) and SWE-Bench Verified, we decompose trajectories into mutating (environment-changing) vs.\ non-mutating steps and formalize decisive deviations, earliest action, level divergences that flip success to failure. A logistic regression reveals that each additional deviation in a mutating action reduces the odds of success by upto 92% on Airline and upto 96% on Retail for SoTA models. In contrast, deviations in non-mutating actions have little to no effect. Errors also grow with context length as agents drift from role and act on stale constraints. Motivated by these observations, we introduce , a model-agnostic, gradient-free, test-time safeguard that (i) adds mutation-gated verification, (ii) injects Targeted Reflection before mutating steps, and (iii) performs block-based context cleaning. delivers consistent gains, e.g., Qwen3-Thinking: +28\% relative on Airline, +11\% on Retail, and +7\% on SWE-Bench Verified; Claude: +9\%/+7\%. We further identify ceiling effects in τ-Bench, where annotation errors and underspecified tasks artificially cap model performance. To address this, we release τ-Bench Verified, which restores benchmark headroom through targeted revisions. Our results argue for action-level analysis, targeted safeguards, and reliable evaluations as prerequisites for robust multi-turn agents.

Three of the most popular methods for training language models to reason look like three different tricks. They are not. All three adjust a single number: standard deviation, reflecting how much a prompt's sampled answers disagree. When such a model is trained, it answers each problem many times, and an automatic checker marks every answer right or wrong. The standard deviation of those marks measures the disagreement: largest when the answers split evenly between right and wrong, and zero when they all agree. Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) divides by this number, GRPO Done Right (Dr. GRPO) drops the division, and Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) discards the groups where it is zero. Each is presented as its own fix, yet this paper proves they are three settings of one dial. That dial is not cosmetic: for right-or-wrong rewards, the disagreement is exactly the size of the training update, the group-standard-deviation identity. A split group teaches the most, while a unanimous group teaches nothing and falls silent. The same result says which problems deserve the most weight and how many tries each one needs. This paper confirms the intuition on a large real difficulty dataset (Big-Math) and in a controlled training run. What looks like a harmless normalization step is the dial that decides where learning happens and how strongly.

Early warning signals have been proposed to forecast the possibility of a critical transition, such as the eutrophication of a lake, the collapse of a coral reef, or the end of a glacial period. Because such transitions often unfold on temporal and spatial scales that can be difficult to approach by experimental manipulation, research has often relied on historical observations as a source of natural experiments. Here we examine a critical difference between selecting systems for study based on the fact that we have observed a critical transition and those systems for which we wish to forecast the approach of a transition. This difference arises by conditionally selecting systems known to experience a transition of some sort and failing to account for the bias this introduces -- a statistical error often known as the Prosecutor's Fallacy. By analysing simulated systems that have experienced transitions purely by chance, we reveal an elevated rate of false positives in common warning signal statistics. We further demonstrate a model-based approach that is less subject to this bias than these more commonly used summary statistics. We note that experimental studies with replicates avoid this pitfall entirely.