Daily Papers

Long-horizon agentic tasks require an agent to modify an environment through a sequence of tool calls, with success determined by the final state. The standard recipe assigns a single outcome reward at the end and compares trajectories sampled for the same task. As a result, a group with no successful trajectory yields no training signal, failed attempts cannot be told apart by how close they came to completion, and turns that advance the task receive the same credit as turns that only query the environment. Prior work refines the unit of comparison from the trajectory to the step, or trains a reward model to supply intermediate signal: the former still derives its signal from final success alone, and the latter estimates it with a model. We observe that the acceptance checks that decide success can also be run on intermediate states, so progress is as verifiable as the outcome. We propose ProCredit, which turns this verified progress into credit: it reruns the acceptance checks after each turn, rewards the turn by its change in progress, and uses these rewards to assign credit both across attempts at the same task and across the turns within a trajectory. Starting from Qwen3.5 base models at three scales on AppWorld, ProCredit outperforms outcome-reward baselines and progress-based baselines in task completion rate at every scale on both test sets, exceeding the strongest outcome-reward baseline by 4.1 percentage points at 4B, and results in a second environment show the same direction of improvement. Ablations show that adding the final progress to the trajectory score alone does not improve performance: the gain comes from crediting progress to the turn where it occurs.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on reusable external skills to solve long-horizon interactive tasks. Existing training-free skill adaptation pipelines usually update skills from full trajectories or session-level feedback, which makes failure attribution coarse and often produces unstable or overly broad revisions. We propose SkillAdaptor, a training-free step-level skill adaptation framework with explicit failure attribution, and it can plug into OpenClaw-class agent harnesses. Given a failed trajectory, SkillAdaptor identifies a first actionable fault step, links responsibility to candidate skills, and applies targeted updates under explicit acceptance checks while keeping the backbone frozen. We evaluate on WebShop, PinchBench, and Claw-Eval with Kimi-K2.5, GLM-5, and GPT-5.2. SkillAdaptor improves over no-skill and skill-adaptation baselines on all three suites, with the largest single-metric improvements of +1.5 points on PinchBench Avg Score%, +1.8 on Claw-Eval Avg Score, and +1.7 on WebShop success rate. These results indicate that step-level attribution supports more stable and auditable training-free skill maintenanceThe code will be released at https://github.com/zjunlp/SkillAdaptor..

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet it remains unclear whether such success reflects genuine reasoning or sophisticated recall. We introduce AInstein, a framework for testing whether LLMs can generate valid solutions to AI research problems using only their pretrained parametric knowledge -- without domain-specific fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, or other external aids. Our approach extracts distilled problem statements from high-quality ICLR 2025 submissions, then tasks specialized solver agents with proposing and refining technical solutions through iterative critique loops, mimicking the cycles of proposal, review, and revision central to scientific inquiry. We evaluate AInstein on 1,214 ICLR papers stratified by acceptance tier (Oral, Spotlight, Poster), using an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm guided by a structured rubric, complemented by targeted manual checks. Performance is assessed with three metrics: Success Rate (does the solution address the problem?), Rediscovery (does it align with human-proposed methods?), and Novelty (does it yield valid, original approaches?). Our results reveal that while LLMs can rediscover feasible solutions and occasionally propose creative alternatives, their problem-solving ability remains fragile and highly sensitive to framing. These findings provide the first large-scale evidence on the extent to which LLMs can act as autonomous scientific problem-solvers, highlighting both their latent potential and their current limitations.

Proactive agents must decide not only what to say but also whether and when to intervene. Many current systems rely on brittle heuristics or indiscriminate long reasoning, which offers little control over the benefit-burden tradeoff. We formulate the problem as cost-sensitive selective intervention and present PRISM, a novel framework that couples a decision-theoretic gate with a dual-process reasoning architecture. At inference time, the agent intervenes only when a calibrated probability of user acceptance exceeds a threshold derived from asymmetric costs of missed help and false alarms. Inspired by festina lente (Latin: "make haste slowly"), we gate by an acceptance-calibrated, cost-derived threshold and invoke a resource-intensive Slow mode with counterfactual checks only near the decision boundary, concentrating computation on ambiguous and high-stakes cases. Training uses gate-aligned, schema-locked distillation: a teacher running the full PRISM pipeline provides dense, executable supervision on unlabeled interaction traces, while the student learns a response policy that is explicitly decoupled from the intervention gate to enable tunable and auditable control. On ProactiveBench, PRISM reduces false alarms by 22.78% and improves F1 by 20.14% over strong baselines. These results show that principled decision-theoretic gating, paired with selective slow reasoning and aligned distillation, yields proactive agents that are precise, computationally efficient, and controllable. To facilitate reproducibility, we release our code, models, and resources at https://prism-festinalente.github.io/; all experiments use the open-source ProactiveBench benchmark.

Serving an answer from a large language model requires deciding when to abstain, yet a verifier's ranking accuracy alone does not determine the error rate among served answers. We introduce PriceCheck, which builds a compact family of decision rules from label-free checks such as re-solving a problem. Each check has a price: its agreement rates on correct and incorrect answers and its cost per run. Prices fitted on a small, class-enriched labelled set compose into predictions of a schedule's coverage and cost, guiding which checks to run and when to stop. A calibration test then selects a schedule at a stated selective-risk target. In mathematics, the selected schedules serve 76.1% of answers on average and keep held-out selective risk below 1.5% on all 15 splits. Under the shared testing protocol, PriceCheck serves more answers at that target than reward models, a prompted judge, the generator's confidence and a trained correctness classifier. At matched coverage, it keeps the fewest wrong answers among these scorers. Across 118 diagnostic schedules, price-based coverage predictions have a rank correlation of 0.97 with observed coverage. These results show that choosing how checks are combined and stopped matters alongside how well a verifier ranks answers. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/PriceCheck.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.