Noticias de IA - ítems

arXiv:2610.36580v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As machine learning systems make increasingly greater decisions about people's lives, it is critical to provide users with actionable recourse about how they can achieve their desired outcomes. This problem is currently tackled by relying on expensive human supervision which involves hand-designing a cost function before searching for low-cost actions that achieve the desired outcome. In this paper, we propose \textit{``Data-Driven Action Recourse"} (DDAR), the first approach for providing action recourse without requiring costly supervision from humans about action costs. We build upon the notion that highly likely trajectories in the historical user data should be associated with lower costs. With this, DDAR first builds a dynamics model of historical user trajectories. Under this model, it then searches for trajectories that achieve the desired outcome. In experiments, we find that this simple approach recommends plausible action recourse without requiring human supervision, achieving lower action costs than the existing approaches.

arXiv:2610.36574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent responses to diverse user requests, yet streaming may expose users to harmful content before generation is complete. Existing guardrails face two limitations in this setting. First, post-hoc moderation at response or chunk boundaries delays intervention, risking harmful exposure when content is released before verification. Second, even with token-level detection, coarse response-level supervision does not specify when harmful content begins, while fixed-layer readouts may miss relevant safety signals at other depths. To address these limitations, we introduce ADTGuard, which checks each token before release, progressively refines token-level training targets, and adapts layer selection to the current prefix. ADTGuard models risk across depth and time through Depth-Time Safety Dynamics (DTSD), which integrates safety evidence across layers at each token and uses it to guide risk accumulation over successive tokens. To adapt the choice of observation layers to the current prefix, we propose the Causal Depth Router (CDR). With only response-level labels available, we further develop Risk-Onset Target Refinement (RTR) to progressively construct token-level training targets for both components. Through extensive experiments across multiple safety benchmarks, we demonstrate that ADTGuard consistently achieves strong streaming detection performance, matching or surpassing state-of-the-art safeguards while requiring only 16M trainable parameters and maintaining competitive per-token latency.

arXiv:2610.36570v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using language agents increasingly modify external systems, yet most runtime safeguards allocate scrutiny by generic uncertainty scores or coarse mutation heuristics. We introduce CASEL (Consequence-Aware Selective Execution Layer), a model-agnostic runtime allocation policy that combines calibrated failure probability, state-dependent consequence, reversibility, ambiguity, and evidence freshness to choose, for each proposed tool call, among direct execution, verification, sandboxing, clarification, approval, and abstention by minimizing a per-mode cost. We formalize direct execution as selective prediction and state and test the validity conditions of a finite-sample threshold and a trajectory risk ledger. In a controlled simulation over 20 seeds with 120,000 test actions each, in which every method has the same intervention menu and the same compute cost, CASEL reduces harmful-side-effect trajectories from 14.75 percent for an uncertainty-ranked gate to 7.02 percent and mean normalized harm from 0.184 to 0.123. A gate ranked by the product of failure probability and consequence reaches similar harm (5.82 percent, 0.120) but sends 45 percent more actions to human approval, and removing reversibility-aware routing raises the rate to 15.53 percent. A trajectory-level risk budget, in contrast, increases harm at equal cost (11.82 percent). Intervention effectiveness is assumed, not measured: the results rank allocation rules under the simulator's assumptions and do not establish deployment effectiveness.

arXiv:2610.36544v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Classification accuracy and true-positive and false-positive rates alone do not determine whether restarting an AI agent improves success. Using an exact alarm-to-action identity for an independent clean restart with zero monitoring overhead, we show analytically that a monitor with fixed 90% accuracy can swing from a five-percentage-point loss to a 35-point gain in success rate, depending solely on the replacement attempt's residual-budget success probability. We introduce two techniques for evaluating monitors and progress signals in decision terms. First, a decision-sufficiency criterion, a binary-action specialization of Blackwell's comparison of experiments, identifies which progress representations or context compressions preserve the information needed to choose optimally between the specified actions, independent of trace reconstruction fidelity. Second, a finite-sample, model-free decision audit uses simultaneous binomial intervals over existing agent traces, without additional model calls, to certify a preference for "restart" or "continue" under stated sampling assumptions, or return "abstain" when evidence is insufficient. In a study of 194 externally evaluated model executions on 19 selected SymPy issues from SWE-bench Verified, with a retrospective audit of 130 of these traces, we find a 2.29-point apparent restart gain traced to a single surviving failed attempt, a 42.29-point loss on a second model, no positive replication of the initial gain on prospective task cohorts, and zero of 103 live comparisons meeting the specified certification bar. These results motivate evaluating agent monitors through recovery opportunity, decision value, and statistical support, rather than classification performance alone.

arXiv:2610.36536v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When one time series informs another, the delay at which that information arrives determines if models can utilize this relationship effectively. A source may be strongly predictive at one delay but uninformative at neighboring lags. Therefore, fixed input windows may obscure this structure by bundling informative and irrelevant history together. Transfer entropy (TE) can recover these delays by measuring how much a source's past tells us about a target beyond the target's own history. However, existing TE estimators require separate fits across source and conditioning depths, with further estimation on local windows to track delays over time. We introduce ATEMPO, a diffusion-based transfer entropy estimator amortized over lags and time. ATEMPO samples source and conditioning depths during training and conditions explicitly on temporal position, allowing a single score network to estimate the full TE surface without refitting. Differencing this surface recovers when information arrives. Across synthetic datasets with ground-truth TE, ATEMPO achieves the lowest mean relative error among baselines, and on datasets with known lags, ATEMPO achieves $0.98\pm0.04$ lag-detection accuracy. ATEMPO requires a single fit across source depths $K=6$ and target depths $L=3$, whereas existing estimators require 18 separate fits to evaluate the same $K \times L$ grid. On three systems with time-varying lag, ATEMPO is the only estimator to maintain perfect lag-detection accuracy across all evaluated window lengths. These recovered delays improve downstream forecasting: ATEMPO-selected inputs reduce MSE on WEATHER-5K by 7.25%, while 120 selected inputs outperform the benchmark's 240-feature default by 4.6%. Across three brain-computer interface tasks, using ATEMPO-selected lags achieves the highest or equal-best $R^2$, improving mean $R^2$ by 4.1% relative to the strongest competing baseline.

arXiv:2610.36513v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models advance rapidly, they are increasingly used to answer medical questions, and many such models are now deployed locally. Once a model is deployed, its behavior is governed mainly by the ethical policy written into its constitution. However, most existing work focuses on factual correctness rather than the trade-off between competing ethical values. Even benchmarks that do evaluate ethics treat it as a fixed property of the model rather than as a variable, so how a constitution reshapes medical-ethics behavior remains largely unexplored. We introduce MedConstBench, a medical-ethics benchmark that treats the deployment constitution as a controlled variable, is organized around Beauchamp's four principles, and is scored by human-calibrated multi-model peer review. It includes MedDilemma, our own dataset of clinical dilemmas, and supports a systematic analysis of how constitutions steer LLMs. Evaluating ten open-source LLMs under four constitutions, we find that the effect of a constitution is dimension-selective and model-dependent, and that no constitution is universally optimal. Motivated by these findings, we propose a do-no-harm adaptive selector that chooses a constitution per model, matching the per-model oracle while guaranteeing a worst-case floor and generalizing to unseen models at low cost.

arXiv:2610.36493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-modal translation requires models to capture shared semantics across modalities while preserving the fine-grained structure required by the target modality. Yet in real-world scientific domains, paired data are often imperfect, while obtaining clean pairs at scale is costly. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) directly optimizes cross-modal translation through categorical token-level supervision, but this objective is sensitive to errors in the target sequences. JEPA offers a complementary representation-space objective, but most existing formulations focus on prediction within a modality rather than translation across modalities. We introduce Anchored Cross-Modal JEPA (AC-JEPA), an SFT-compatible plug-in that predicts masked intermediate states in both cross-modal directions using paired data. The joint-embedding objective targets cross-modal structure predictable from context, while the causal SFT path retains direct token-level supervision for the target sequence. During self-training, AC-JEPA learns from continuous latent targets derived from imperfect pseudo-labeled pairs, offering intrinsic tolerance to local data errors without promoting pseudo-tokens to hard categorical supervision. Using optical chemical structure recognition as a testbed, AC-JEPA trained on clean pairs achieves 76.07% accuracy on the Simple set of the WildMol benchmark, compared with 67.40% for SFT alone. Using the same pseudo-labeled data for both approaches, AC-JEPA-based self-training further raises accuracy to 80.23%, whereas accuracy under direct SFT drops from 67.40% to 63.47%. These results support SFT-anchored joint-embedding prediction as an effective strategy for cross-modal translation under both curated and imperfect supervision.

arXiv:2610.36484v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Claims about the cognitive capabilities of large language models are typically tested by translating behavioral paradigms into text prompts, bypassing the visual interfaces and time pressure through which human participants actually engage with experiments. At the same time, AI agents can now complete online behavioral tasks and produce human-like data, which raises concerns that online datasets in the social and behavioral sciences are increasingly open to contamination. We introduce CogArena, a benchmark of ten experimental paradigms from the social and behavioral sciences. Agents complete the experiments through a standard web browser, working with the same visual stimuli and response interfaces that online participants use. A three-level scoring procedure evaluates whether the agent completed the task, how accurately it performed, and whether its data show the behavioral signatures each paradigm reliably produces in people. Across four multimodal models, each run ten times per task, we find that finishing an experiment and reproducing its signatures are different things. Many sessions did not finish, and those that did reproduced some signatures reliably and others not at all. CogArena provides the tasks, scoring code, and a public leaderboard for new submissions.

arXiv:2610.36471v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents interact with Web services to perform tasks on users' behalf. Errors during these interactions can disrupt execution and prevent task completion, motivating external intervention. However, agents may self-recover through continued execution, raising the question of when to intervene and when to wait for self-recovery. We present an empirical study of errors and self-recovery in LLM agents. We construct ReInBench, a dataset containing 1,259 agent traces and 1,403 error events across computer-use and Web tasks. Our study examines how often and how quickly agents self-recover, how self-recovery relates to subsequent execution and task completion, and whether self-recovery can be predicted when an error occurs. We find that 725 error events self-recover, often within a few steps, with self-recovery performance differing across Execution LLMs. Self-recovery can also help agents recover from subsequent errors of the same type and support overall task completion. Intervention should therefore prioritize errors unlikely to self-recover, while allowing agents to continue when self-recovery is likely. Building on these empirical findings, we propose ReCoF, a method that predicts whether an error will self-recover to inform whether additional intervention is needed. ReCoF achieves an average relative improvement of 9.02% in Macro-F1 over the strongest baseline on ReInBench. Our code and data can be found at https://method-notes.github.io/ReCoF/.

arXiv:2610.36453v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents that answer questions and act on behalf of users must decide when to yield to a user who disagrees. Disagreement may correct a genuine error or may be an attempt at manipulation. Prior work shows that models frequently abandon correct answers when challenged by users, yet it remains unclear whether they distinguish correction from manipulation or merely differ in their propensity to concede. We examine this question across seven LLMs from four vendors in two studies, one on the answers agents give and one on the actions they take as customer-support agents whose policy permits account changes only for verified users. Simulated users push toward correct and incorrect answers with graded pressure. Following research on epistemic vigilance, the pressure either appeals to the source, such as claimed authority, or offers content the agent cannot verify, namely a cited source. Drawing on signal detection theory, we measure on a set of benchmark questions how much more readily each agent concedes to correction than to manipulation, separately from its overall propensity to concede. Citations made five of seven models readier to concede and four worse at discriminating, while stronger wording added little. In the agentic study, five models never violated the verification policy, including models that readily abandoned correct answers, so concession on answers did not predict violations of policy. Ministral 3B violated the policy mainly under claimed authority, and Ministral 8B reported changes it had not made. An instruction to revise only on verifiable evidence chiefly shifted propensity to concede rather than improving discrimination. Concession rates alone are therefore misleading, and agents should be evaluated on both their discrimination and the actions they take.