Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over"candidate explanations,"a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.
Rafal Urbaniak, Sam Witty, Daniel Waxman et al.· 0 citations
On-policy distillation (OPD) combines student-generated rollouts with dense token-level supervision from a teacher. Existing work has mainly studied its algorithmic behavior, leaving the role of training data unclear. We examine this role at the data-minimal limit by training on a single query. One-shot OPD keeps improving for hundreds of steps and recovers most of full-data OPD's gain across task domains and model families. We explain this result through the states visited during training and the rate at which the student aligns with the teacher. We measure \emph{state coverage}, the fraction of the states full-data OPD visits that a query set's rollouts reach. A single query already reaches \(71.5\%\), most of it within the first 100 steps. Adding semantically distinct queries raises coverage and validation accuracy together, until 16 queries reach \(98.9\%\) and match full-data training. Yet alignment slows at a similar pace whether OPD trains on one query or the whole dataset, and even a fixed set of states takes hundreds of steps to absorb. OPD is therefore data-overfed but algorithm-starved. Its rollouts quickly expose broad supervision, while the student absorbs that supervision increasingly slowly. The state-coverage result extends to multi-teacher OPD, where 16 semantically diverse queries per domain match full-data MOPD. As a further stress test, content-light templates and off-domain WildChat queries also approach the real-query baseline. Task content and induced state coverage can therefore come apart. We hope these findings direct future work toward the step efficiency of OPD, and prompt a re-examination of the data and the mechanisms behind its recent successes in frontier post-training.
Zi-Xuan Fu, Bing-Xiang He, Yu-Xin Zuo et al.· 1 citation
Multi-agent AI science ecosystems rely on agents possessing tools that allow them to communicate, coordinate, and build on each other's work. Yet this shared infrastructure can also introduce vulnerabilities by creating a substrate for the contagious spread of unintended and undesirable behaviors. We report a case study on a research collective of 100 autonomous LLM agents tasked with proving formal mathematical conjectures. Within the swarm, cheating spontaneously emerged and was later challenged by whistleblowers - both without any external intervention. When a single agent discovered an exploit in the evaluation system, it propagated across the collective via a shared knowledge library and later through peer-to-peer messages. Despite early reluctance, a cohort of agents adopted the exploit in response to competitive pressure. A separate group of agents produced an emergent counter-response: auditing fraudulent proofs, alerting peers across broadcast and private channels, staging boycotts, lodging formal complaints, and proposing validation patches. In recent incidents, agent swarms coordinated covertly through improvised side-channels (Dalton and Wallace, 2026; Greenblatt et al., 2026). Our setting differs: the same transparent channels that carried the exploit also gave non-cheating agents the visibility they needed to detect fraud, organize resistance, and enforce norms. We cast the problem of managing the agents' shared infrastructure as the knowledge commons governance problem (Ostrom, 1990). To protect the commons from exploits, we propose to adopt institutional mechanisms, such as graduated sanctioning and collective-choice rules, to support decentralized self-governance in autonomous swarms.
Davide Paglieri, Logan Cross, Tim Genewein et al.· 0 citations
Research and news coverage of language-model deception increasingly attributes human-like mental-state concepts to language models. Such claims can blur the distinction between behavior that looks deceptive and a mechanism that is actually deceptive.
We introduce a causal taxonomy separating prior commitment from retrospective report, model preference from realized output, false preference from sensitivity to the utility of misleading a recipient, and deceptive behavior from the provenance of the objective or strategy producing it. We test these distinctions in two open-weight model families. Across controlled guessing-game and stock-trading experiments, we find that deceptive-looking behavior can arise without the corresponding proposed mechanism, while other interventions provide direct evidence that recipient information state can causally affect deceptive preference.
These results show that deceptive behavior can provide evidence for a deceptive mechanism. But even evidence for such a mechanism does not establish model agency in the deception.
Yakov Pyotr Shkolnikov· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
As terminal-based code agents become prevalent, agent trajectories have accumulated at scale, while realistic, executable environments remain scarce. However, environments are what agent post-training actually requires: each can be re-queried into many verifiable tasks and provides execution feedback, whereas a trajectory is a single frozen demonstration. Rather than generating environments from scratch, we observe that the tool-execution history in existing trajectories exposes the structure and contents of the environments in which they ran, making it possible to reconstruct those environments from the trajectories themselves. Thus, we introduce Terminal-Universe, a framework which turns each trajectory into a reusable environment and explores it for synthesizing new tasks and continued interactions. Specifically, Terminal-Universe replays the file operations recorded in a trajectory to restore each file before the agent modified it, yielding a partial workspace; a completion agent then supplies the missing files and dependencies. On this recovered workspace, we both reconstruct the original intent task and synthesize entirely new ones. Besides, we also scale the tasks along two complementary axes: breadth and depth. For breadth, we mine directional dependency relations between related environments and synthesize cross-workspace queries spanning multiple codebases, as developers routinely do in real-world development. For depth, we extend the initial single-turn query into a multi-round session that captures iterative user feedback and requirement refinement via a user agent. Applied to public terminal agent trajectories, Terminal-Universe produces 37.3k task-sufficient environments. Supervised fine-tuning of Qwen3.5-27B on this corpus improves single-round performance on Terminal-Bench 2.1 by 11.9 points and multi-round performance on EvoCode-Bench v2 MT@4 by 13.8 points.
Jie Wu, Zhenru Zhang, Beichen Zhang et al.· 0 citations
AI agents are trained on population-scale data to encode broad capabilities spanning those of many practitioners. Yet the artifacts they produce rarely meet the personal bar professionals need to stake their reputation on. On realistic, open-ended tasks where success criteria are heterogeneous and insufficiently documented, individual expertise lives precisely in the elevation and departure from the average. In practice, iterative human-agent interaction surfaces criteria that users cannot fully specify up front, yet apply repeatedly across tasks. We argue this cross-session interaction data is a rich, underused signal for closing the gap to individual expertise. In this work, we propose test-time adaptation through human-agent interaction (TAHI), which integrates these signals into agent context and weights, and crystallizes each user's training and evaluation criteria via an evolving rubric module. We adapt agents to 30 individuals in two high-utility domains, writing and visual creation, on a total of 600 tasks. Our agents improve solo task success by 4.5-20.9% within only tens of tasks. Meanwhile, our evolving rubric module serves as a scalable annotation tool, creating evaluation rubrics that catch 16.0-22.3% more failures than those from LMs or humans alone. While agents are adapted towards individuals, we show these personalized agents also produce improvements in success of up to 8.8% that generalize across users.
Z. Wang, Apurva Gandhi, Rulin Shao et al.· 0 citations
AI agents are increasingly being developed and deployed across organizations using heterogeneous agent-development frameworks, AI models, tool interfaces, protocols, and execution environments. To realize their potential social and business impact, these agents must be able to interoperate through a common communication protocol. The Natural Language Interaction Protocol (NLIP), developed by researchers and practitioners across companies and universities and standardized by Ecma International, addresses this need by defining a standards-based application-layer protocol for AI-agent interaction. NLIP provides a lightweight semantic message envelope that can be carried over existing transports such as HTTP/HTTPS, WebSocket, and AMQP, while allowing NLIP-aware agents and gateways to adapt between clients, agents, local context stores, ontologies, tools, enterprise services, and heterogeneous underlying protocols. This paper presents the motivation and design rationale of NLIP, its message model and transport bindings, security-by-design considerations, reference implementation, representative applications, adoption signals, and relationship to emerging agent protocols such as MCP and A2A.
Scaling interactive and verifiable environments is critical for training terminal agents. As frontier models become more capable, environments synthesized from scratch become less challenging and thus provide limited learning signals. Recent co-evolution methods iteratively synthesize environments near the model's learnable frontier based on weaknesses exposed during rollouts. However, their dependence on on-policy rollouts limits generalization and the continuous provision of learning signals as the model becomes stronger. In this paper, we propose environment evolution, which incrementally increases environment difficulty off-policy and schedules the evolved environments generation by generation during training to provide continuous learning signals. We derive three evolution directions that influence environment difficulty from the multi-turn learning objective and then implement evolution along these directions through a loop-engineered multi-agent harness. Quantitative rollout experiments with Hy4 preview, Claude Opus 5, and GPT-5.6 Sol show that environment evolution consistently produces more difficult environments. We validate its effectiveness on Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B through simple long-horizon RL training, improving their performance by 14.4 and 18.0 percentage points on Terminal-Bench 2.1, respectively.
Zhi-Yuan Fan, Ting-Hao Yu, Yuan-Jun Cai et al.· 0 citations
Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions, yet users often lack a principled basis for assessing whether to rely on a specific recommendation. Existing approaches typically evaluate broad model properties, such as reliability, uncertainty, or robustness, or focus on user trust, rather than the underlying basis for relying on an individual recommendation. Adapting theoretical foundations from epistemology, we introduce epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that characterizes the stability of a model's preference and the scope over which that preference holds. We operationalize this construct through a four-tier reliance certificate for pairwise recommendations, distinguishing among unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported recommendations. We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies: known-groups tests successfully recover expert-prespecified warrant orderings, and stronger warrants systematically align with independent consensus from crowd workers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epistemic warrant provides information distinct from verbalized confidence and is not readily explained by decision difficulty. Ultimately, this framework offers a theoretically grounded, implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual LLM recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.
Hybrid LLMs pair softmax attention with linear-attention layers such as Gated DeltaNet (GDN), whose recurrent state summarizes the context in fixed size. Early community 4-bit quantizations of Qwen3.8-27B (48 GDN layers, 16 attention layers) left the GDN block in 8- or 16-bit precision -- especially its decay and write-strength gates -- on the intuition that errors in a recurrence accumulate over long contexts. We test that intuition by building Minima: NVFP4 W4A4 on all 496 linear layers, GDN included. Across perplexity at 4K/32K, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K, AIME'25, GPQA-Diamond, LiveCodeBench, and RULER retrieval to 64K, Minima matches BF16 within seed noise (5-task average -0.52) while being the smallest (17.5 GiB) and fastest-prefill (+14-19%) recipe we compare, and its 32K perplexity gap shrinks with position. A four-part mechanism study explains why: (i) NVFP4's 16-element block scaling localizes the residual stream's extreme outliers, equalizing activation error across layer roles; (ii) the supposedly fragile gate projections are the least sensitive -- softplus/exponential and sigmoid parameterizations compress ~11% GEMM error to ~2% output error; (iii) the delta-rule recurrence holds injected noise at a flat plateau over 32K tokens and forgets a state impulse within hundreds of steps, because each write overwrites the state along the current key direction; (iv) the per-token quantization cost washes out with context instead of compounding. We also repair a global-scale mismatch that arises when per-module-calibrated NVFP4 checkpoints are served by kernels that fuse those modules into one GEMM, and show calibrated FP8 KV-cache scales are performance-free. The result: a practical recipe -- quantize everything, ship KV scales -- and a mechanistic account of why the recurrent half of a hybrid LLM is the easy half to quantize. Checkpoint: https://huggingface.co/minima-ai/mnma_qwen3.8_27b_nvfp4
Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards works well when a task has a programmatic checker, but most long-horizon agent domains have none. We work in the outcome-blind setting, where ground-truth success signals are not available. Multi-criteria rubrics are a popular way to supply such a reward; they are scored once per trajectory, but a single scalar is a poor signal across tens of steps. We propose DRACO: Distributing Rubric-based Advantage for Credit Optimization. It generates rubrics dynamically during training to track the policy's evolving capability, scores those rubrics once per completed trajectory, and redistributes that judgment over the steps responsible for annotated rubrics to produce differentiated per-step advantages in GRPO. The redistribution is closed-form and does not introduce any trained attribution module. On AppWorld, DRACO gains 15.9 points over the base model and 5.3 points over GRPO trained with a sparse ground-truth reward, despite not using any verifiers itself. On out-of-domain Tau-Bench, it gains 5.3 points over the base model even without a frontier judge, beating both ground-truth-reward training and other rubric-based training settings. The code for DRACO is available at https://github.com/IBM/draco.
Shubham Gandhi, Saurabh Goyal, Kiran Kate et al.· 0 citations
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is widely studied for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, where its advantage estimator assigns each rollout a magnitude from within-group reward statistics. In the common case, this magnitude rewards rollouts that reach the correct answer through reasoning. Yet, an overlooked case shares the same surface: a rollout may land on it by guessing, and the formula still assigns a high magnitude, which we identify as the spurious advantage. This arises in three cases: bounded-answer tasks with a small candidate set; open-answer sets hosting bounded sub-cases; and search agents whose budget opens many paths to the same answer. In all three, this misleads the policy toward guess-like behaviors. We propose SIGNBALANCE, whose magnitude is composition-free: it keeps the verifier sign, uses a global scale, and restores zero-mean balance via a stop-gradient per-class rescaling. Across math and search agent benchmarks at different scales, SIGNBALANCE matches GRPO on open-answer math and improves on bounded-answer math and search agents. Code will be released.
Jiamian Wang, Samyadeep Basu, Koustava Goswami et al.· 0 citations
