The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06503 · v1 · pith:D6LZTTW3 · submitted 2026-07-07 · cs.AI

Doomed from the Start: Early Abort of LLM Agent Episodes via a Recall-Controlled Probe Cascade

Kai Ruan , Zihe Huang , Ziqi Zhou , Qianshan Wei , Xuan Wang , Hao Sun This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 03:27 UTCglm-5.2pith:D6LZTTW3record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.AI
keywords agentcascaderecallbehaviorearlyfailureabortacross
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hidden states reveal doomed LLM agent episodes at round one

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper claims that an LLM agent's eventual failure on a multi-step task is predictable from its internal hidden-state activations as early as the first interaction round, long before behavioral signals become informative. The authors build a practical abort cascade on top of this signal: at each of the first several rounds, a lightweight linear probe reads the agent's hidden state and a Clopper-Pearson-calibrated gate decides whether to abort the episode. Per-round recall budgets are jointly searched under a global constraint so that the fraction of eventually-successful episodes that survive all gates meets a user-specified target. The key insight is that per-round guarantees do not compose into episode-level guarantees on their own, because false-abort risk accumulates across gates; the cascade explicitly controls this composite risk. At a 90% global success-recall target, the cascade saves 47.1% of inference compute for a Qwen-2.5-7B agent and 37.2% for a Llama-3.2-3B agent on the TextCraft environment, 1.6-1.7 times what any single-gate policy achieves. The paper also characterizes the sample complexity required to certify stricter recall targets, showing that with roughly 115 successful validation episodes, targets above 0.974 cannot be formally certified regardless of scorer quality.

Core claim

The central discovery is a timing asymmetry in failure-predictive signal: linear probes on the agent's residual-stream hidden activations at the first interaction round already match or exceed the peak discriminative performance of behavior-only scorers, which only become informative at rounds 3-4, after a third of episodes have already finished and most useful compute is spent. This internal signal is available when it matters most for saving compute, and it subsumes behavioral information: stacking behavioral features onto the probe yields no additional gain. The cascade converts this early signal into deployable compute savings by distributing recall budgets across rounds rather than exp-

What carries the argument

The recall-controlled probe cascade: per-round linear probes on hidden activations, each gated by a Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound on survival rate for successful episodes, with the per-round recall budget vector jointly searched on a validation split to maximize compute savings subject to a global episode-level recall constraint. An optional certificate replaces the heuristic safety margin with a distribution-free global recall guarantee, making the sample complexity of stricter targets explicit.

Load-bearing premise

The distribution-free calibration of the gates assumes that the calibration and validation data are exchangeable with deployment-time episodes. If the task distribution shifts at deployment (e.g., new task types appear), the recall guarantees no longer hold and the gates must be recalibrated on a labeled sample from the new distribution.

What would settle it

A deployment setting where hidden-state activations at round 1 do not linearly separate doomed from eventually-successful episodes, or where the exchangeability assumption is violated so that achieved recall falls below the target despite calibration. The paper evaluates on a single environment (TextCraft) with 100 tasks and two models; a different environment or agent architecture where the early-internal-signal advantage disappears would undermine the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06503 by Hao Sun, Kai Ruan, Qianshan Wei, Xuan Wang, Zihe Huang, Ziqi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Recall-controlled abort cascade. At each of the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fraction of episodes still running at each gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Achieved global success recall of the cascade vs. its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compute savings versus global recall target for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample complexity of the global recall certificate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Validation vs. test global recall of the searched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-layer probe-AUC sweeps used to fix the probe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents solving multi-step tasks frequently commit to trajectories that are doomed to fail, yet continue to consume substantial inference compute before the failure becomes observable. We show that failure is predictable early from the agent's internal representations: lightweight per-round probes on hidden activations anticipate eventual episode failure as early as the first interaction round, where scorers reading only the agent's observable behavior are barely better than chance. We turn this signal into a practical abort cascade: one distribution-free calibrated gate per round, with per-round recall budgets jointly searched so that eventually-successful episodes survive all gates at a user-specified global rate; this episode-level guarantee is the one that matters in deployment, since false-abort risk accumulates across gates. Across two agent models on TextCraft, the cascade meets every recall target from 90% to 97% and, at the 90% target, saves 47.1% +/- 10.3% (Qwen-2.5-7B) and 37.2% +/- 8.8% (Llama-3.2-3B) of inference compute, 1.6--1.7x the best single-gate policy. An otherwise-identical cascade reading only behavior saves roughly half as much, and adding behavioral features to the probe yields no further gain: the hidden states capture what behavior reveals. Finally, we characterize the sample complexity of certifying high recall targets, telling practitioners which recall promises their data can, and provably cannot, back. The code will be released soon.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cascade of Clopper-Pearson-calibrated gates on per-round hidden-state probes to abort doomed LLM agent episodes early while controlling global success recall. Per-round recall budgets are jointly searched on a validation split under a global constraint, with an optional distribution-free certificate. Evaluated on TextCraft with two agent models (Qwen-2.5-7B and Llama-3.2-3B), the cascade saves 47.1% and 37.2% of inference compute at a 90% recall target, meeting all tested targets from 90% to 97%. The paper also characterizes the sample complexity of certifying high recall targets. The methodology is careful: task-grouped cross-fitting, 20 random seeds, disjoint calibration/validation/test splits, and honest reporting of both savings and achieved recall.

Significance. The paper makes a solid contribution to the practical deployment of LLM agents by addressing a real problem—wasted compute on doomed episodes—with a principled, distribution-free calibration framework. The episode-level recall guarantee across sequential gates is a meaningful advance over per-check error rate control, and the sample complexity analysis of certification limits is a transparent and useful feature. The finding that internal representations predict failure earlier than behavioral signals is well-supported and practically relevant. The experimental protocol is rigorous for the scope tested.

major comments (2)
  1. Appendix A, 'Per-Layer Probe AUC Sweeps': The Llama-3.2-3B probe layer was selected via a 'post-generation sweep' over layers {6,10,14,18,22,26} with no stated independent or held-out split, unlike the Qwen-2.5-7B selection which explicitly used 'an independent pilot set of rollouts collected before the main experiments.' If the Llama layer sweep used data overlapping with the main evaluation splits, this introduces hyperparameter selection bias affecting Llama's AUCs (Figure 3), savings (Table 1), and the probe-vs-surface comparison (Figure 6). Since Llama is one of only two models and its results are part of the central evidence for generalization, this asymmetry should be resolved. The authors should either (a) clarify that the Llama sweep used a disjoint pilot set, or (b) if it did not, re-run the layer selection on a held-out pilot set and report updated Llama results, or (c) at a最低
  2. Section 'Experimental Setup' and 'Discussion and Limitations': The entire framework's deployment value rests on the exchangeability assumption underlying the Clopper-Pearson gates and the global certificate. The paper acknowledges this in the Discussion but evaluates on a single environment (TextCraft) with 100 tasks. While the paper is transparent about this limitation, the generalization claim ('across two agent models') would be substantially strengthened by even a brief evaluation on a second environment or a held-out set of unseen task types within TextCraft. If this is not feasible within the current scope, the authors should more prominently qualify the generalization claim in the abstract and contributions, and ideally provide a concrete sensitivity analysis showing how recall degrades under simulated distribution shift (e.g., training probes on a subset of task types and testing
minor comments (7)
  1. Figure 3: Error bars (across the 20 seeds) are not shown on the AUC curves. Given that the paper reports standard deviations for all other metrics, adding shaded confidence intervals or error bars would help readers assess whether the probe-vs-surface AUC differences are statistically meaningful at each round.
  2. Section 'Per-Round Failure Scorers': The surface scorer uses a fixed set of behavioral features (mean action-token log-probability, token counts, error keyword counts, etc.). The paper should briefly justify this feature set or note it as a reasonable baseline rather than an optimized one, since the claim that 'hidden states capture what behavior reveals' depends partly on the surface scorer being a fair representation of behavioral information.
  3. The abstract states savings as '47.1% +/- 10.3%' and '37.2% +/- 8.8%'. These are large standard deviations relative to the means. The paper should clarify in the abstract or Table 1 caption that these are standard deviations across 20 seeds (task-grouped splits), not confidence intervals, to avoid readers interpreting them as tight estimates.
  4. Section 'Recall Budget Search Under a Global Constraint': The budget grid has 6^6 = 46,656 candidates. The paper should briefly note the computational cost of this search and whether it is tractable at deployment time when recalibrating on new data, or whether a smaller grid would suffice in practice.
  5. Table 1: The uniform allocation baseline saves 0.0% at strict targets (0.95, 0.97) for both models. It would help to clarify whether this is because the uniform allocation abstains (no feasible candidate) or because it saves nothing for later gates?
  6. The paper states 'code will be released soon.' For reproducibility, especially given the layer-selection concern above, the released code should include the pilot set and layer sweep scripts for both models, not just the main experiment pipeline.
  7. Section 'Related Work': The distinction between this work and Padhi et al. (2026) and Mehta (2026) is well-articulated. The comparison with Atropos (Kim and Yoo 2026) could be sharpened by noting that Atropos reads generated text and provides no recall control, whereas this work provides both internal-state access and formal guarantees—a clear two-axis improvement that could be stated more crisply.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. Both major comments identify legitimate concerns: (1) the Llama layer-selection sweep lacks an explicit statement that it used a disjoint pilot set, creating an asymmetry with the Qwen protocol, and (2) the generalization claim rests on a single environment. We address both below, committing to a clarification and partial re-run for the first and a prominent qualification plus a leave-one-task-group-out sensitivity analysis for the second.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Appendix A: Llama layer sweep used 'post-generation sweep' with no stated independent/held-out split, unlike Qwen which explicitly used an independent pilot set. If the Llama sweep used data overlapping with main evaluation splits, this introduces hyperparameter selection bias. The authors should (a) clarify the Llama sweep used a disjoint pilot set, (b) re-run on a held-out pilot set and report updated results, or (c) at minimum acknowledge the limitation.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the manuscript creates an asymmetry in how layer selection is described for the two models. We can clarify the actual situation: the Llama-3.2-3B layer sweep was conducted on the same pilot set of rollouts collected before the main experiments as the Qwen sweep—the phrase 'post-generation' in Appendix A refers to the fact that AUCs were computed after the pilot rollouts were generated, not that the sweep was run on the main evaluation data. The pilot set is disjoint from the calibration, validation, and test splits used in all reported results. We will revise Appendix A to state this explicitly and remove the confusing asymmetry in wording. However, to fully satisfy the referee's concern and eliminate any doubt, we will also re-run the Llama layer sweep on a freshly collected, independently disjoint pilot set (additional rollouts not used in any prior analysis) and confirm that the selected layer and all downstream results are unchanged. If any results shift, we will report the updated numbers transparently. This addresses option (b) of the referee's suggested remedies. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The framework's deployment value rests on the exchangeability assumption, but the paper evaluates on a single environment (TextCraft, 100 tasks). The generalization claim ('across two agent models') would be strengthened by a second environment or held-out unseen task types. If not feasible, the authors should more prominently qualify the generalization claim in the abstract and contributions, and provide a sensitivity analysis showing how recall degrades under simulated distribution shift (e.g., training probes on a subset of task types and testing on held-out task types).

    Authors: We agree that the single-environment scope is a genuine limitation and that the generalization claim should be more carefully qualified. Within the revision timeframe, a full second-environment evaluation is not feasible, so we will take two concrete steps. First, we will qualify the generalization claim in the abstract and contributions to make clear that our evidence is limited to TextCraft and that cross-environment generalization is an open question. Second, we will conduct the sensitivity analysis the referee suggests: a leave-one-task-group-out evaluation in which probes and gates are calibrated on a subset of TextCraft task types and evaluated on a held-out task group, directly testing how recall and savings degrade under task-type distribution shift. TextCraft tasks span multiple crafting complexity tiers and recipe structures, so this provides a meaningful, if imperfect, proxy for distribution shift. We will report these results in a new subsection of the paper. We note honestly that this analysis cannot fully substitute for a second environment—it tests shift within one task distribution rather than across environments—but it does make the exchangeability assumption's fragility empirically visible rather than merely acknowledged in prose. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; derivation chain is self-contained with proper data splitting

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is non-circular. Probes are trained on environment-provided binary outcomes (task success/failure) via task-grouped cross-fitting, so every episode is scored by a probe that never saw its task. Gate thresholds are calibrated on a disjoint 20% calibration split using standard Clopper-Pearson bounds. Budget vectors are searched on a separate 20% validation split. Final evaluation is on a held-out 60% test split. The recall targets are met on the test split, not by construction. The sample-complexity bound (rule of three) is a standard statistical result, not self-cited. No self-citations are load-bearing for the central claims. The one methodological concern flagged by the skeptic — that the Llama-3.2-3B probe layer was selected via a 'post-generation sweep' without explicit statement of an independent split (Appendix A) — is a potential hyperparameter-selection bias issue affecting internal validity, not a circularity: selecting layer 14 does not make the reported savings or recall equivalent to the input by definition. The Qwen layer selection used an independent pilot set. This concern belongs under correctness risk, not circularity. Score 1 reflects the minor methodological opacity in the Llama layer sweep but no reduction of outputs to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities (particles, forces, dimensions, etc.). It uses standard statistical machinery (Clopper-Pearson bounds, logistic regression, conformal-style calibration) applied to a new setting. The free parameters are hyperparameters chosen by sweeps or fixed a priori, not fitted constants that define the result. The axioms are standard distribution-free assumptions (exchangeability, linear separability) that are clearly stated and whose limitations are discussed.

free parameters (8)
  • Probe layer (Llama) = 14
    Selected by post-generation AUC sweep over layers {6,10,14,18,22,26}
  • Probe layer (Qwen) = 20
    Selected by AUC sweep on independent pilot set over layers {0,2,...,28}
  • L2 regularization C = 1
    Fixed for all logistic regression probes
  • Safety margin delta = 0.02
    Fixed a priori; happens to match binomial SE at n_pos~114, rho*=0.95
  • Per-gate confidence alpha = 0.05
    Clopper-Pearson confidence level
  • Certificate level alpha_m = 0.05
    Global recall certificate confidence level
  • Number of gates R_g = 6
    Fixed; justified by episode survival decay after round 6
  • Budget grid = {0.85,0.90,0.95,0.98,0.99,1.0}^6
    46,656 candidates searched on validation split
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Exchangeability of episodes between calibration/validation/test splits
    Required for Clopper-Pearson bounds and conformal-style guarantees to hold; invoked implicitly throughout the calibration pipeline (§Per-Round Recall-Calibrated Gates, §Recall Budget Search Under a Global Constraint). The paper acknowledges this can be violated under distribution shift (Discussion).
  • domain assumption Linear separability of failure signal in hidden states
    The probe is a logistic regression on a single layer's activations; this assumes the failure-predictive signal is linearly decodable. Supported empirically by AUC results but not proven theoretically (§Per-Round Failure Scorers).
  • domain assumption Task-level independence
    Task-grouped splitting assumes episodes from different tasks are independent; used throughout the cross-fitting and split protocol (§Recall Budget Search).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 18579 in / 2965 out tokens · 265554 ms · 2026-07-08T03:27:32.109618+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes

    Understanding Intermedi- ate Layers Using Linear Classifier Probes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644. Angelopoulos, A. N.; and Bates, S

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Angelopoulos,A.N.;Bates,S.;Fisch,A.;Lei,L.;andSchus- ter,T.2024

    Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 19(2): 1641–1662. Angelopoulos,A.N.;Bates,S.;Fisch,A.;Lei,L.;andSchus- ter,T.2024. ConformalRiskControl. InInternationalCon- ference on Learning Representations. Azaria, A.; and Mitchell, T

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    When Evidence is Sparse: Weakly Supervised Early Failure Alerting in Dialogs and LLM-Agent Trajectories

    When Evidence is Sparse: Weakly Supervised Early Fail- ure Alerting in Dialogs and LLM-Agent Trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05414. Barke, S.; Goyal, A.; Khare, A.; Singh, A.; Nath, S.; and Bansal, C

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Agentrx: Diagnosing AI agent failures from execution trajectories,

    AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02475. Bates, S.; Angelopoulos, A.; Lei, L.; Malik, J.; and Jordan, M. I

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance

    FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05176. Chen, S.; et al

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y.; et al

    Signals: Trajectory Sampling and Triage for Agentic Interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00356. Chen, Y.; et al

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    EE-LLM: Large-Scale Training and Inference of Early-Exit Large Language Models with 3D Parallelism

    EE-LLM: Large-Scale Training and Inference of Early-Exit Large Language Models with 3D Parallelism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04916. Cherian, J. J.; Gibbs, I.; and Candès, E. J

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Knowing When to Quit: A Principled Framework for Dynamic Abstention in LLM Reasoning

    Large Lan- guage Model Validity via Enhanced Conformal Prediction Methods. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Davidov,H.;Cohen,N.;Kalinsky,O.;Fairstein,Y.;Kushile- vitz,G.;Yazdi,R.;andRebeschini,P.2026. KnowingWhen toQuit:APrincipledFrameworkforDynamicAbstentionin LLM Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18419. DeepSeek-AI.2025. DeepSeek-...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know

    LLM Internal States Reveal Halluci- nation Risk Faced With a Query. InProceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLPWorkshop:AnalyzingandInterpretingNeural Networks for NLP. Kadavath, S.; Conerly, T.; Askell, A.; Henighan, T.; Drain, D.;etal.2022. LanguageModels(Mostly)KnowWhatThey Know.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221. Kim,N.;andYoo,S.2026. Atropos:ImprovingCost-Bene...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs

    Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15927. Lei,J.;G’Sell,M.;Rinaldo,A.;Tibshirani,R.J.;andWasser- man,L.2018. Distribution-FreePredictiveInferenceforRe- gression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523): 1094–1111. Li, X.; Yan, W.; Wu, Y.; Liang, P.; Yuan, M.; Liu, J.; and Yang, J

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Early Diagnosis of Wasted Computation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems via Failure-Aware Observability

    Early Diagnosis of Wasted Computation in Multi-AgentLLMSystemsviaFailure-AwareObservability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01365. Li,Y.;Yuan,P.;Feng,S.;Pan,B.;Wang,X.;Sun,B.;Wang, H.; and Li, K

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    Escape Sky-High Cost: Early-Stopping Self-ConsistencyforMulti-StepReasoning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. Lightman, H.; Kosaraju, V.; Burda, Y.; Edwards, H.; Baker, B.;Lee,T.;Leike,J.;Schulman,J.;Sutskever,I.;andCobbe, K.2024. Let’sVerifyStepbyStep. InInternationalConfer- ence on Learning Representations. Lin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liu,...

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    BAGEN: Are LLM Agents Budget-Aware?

    BAGEN: Are LLM Agents Budget-Aware?arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.00198. Lu, Q.; Ding, L.; Cao, S.; Liu, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, J.; and Tao, D

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Adaptive Inference-Time Compute: LLMs Can Predict if They Can Do Better, Even Mid-Generation

    Adap- tive Inference-Time Compute: LLMs Can Predict If They Can Do Better, Even Mid-Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02725. Mao, M.; Yin, B.; Zhu, Y.; and Fang, X

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Early Stopping Chain-of-thoughts in Large Language Models

    Early Stop- ping Chain-of-Thoughts in Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14004. Marks, S.; and Tegmark, M

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    When Agents Commit Too Soon: Diagnosing Premature Commitment in LLM Agents

    The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Rep- resentations of True/False Datasets. InConference on Lan- guage Modeling. Mehta,A.2026. WhenAgentsCommitTooSoon:Diagnos- ing Premature Commitment in LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.22936. Meta AI

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision- edge-mobile-devices/

    Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge AI and vision with open, customizable models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision- edge-mobile-devices/. Miao, R.; Yan, Y.; Yao, X.; and Yang, T

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    An Efficient Inference Framework for Early-exit Large Language Models

    An Efficient InferenceFrameworkforEarly-ExitLargeLanguageModels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20272. Mohri, C.; and Hashimoto, T

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    From Actions to Understanding: Conformal Interpretability of Temporal Concepts in LLM Agents

    From Actions to Under- standing: Conformal Interpretability of Temporal Concepts in LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19775. Papadopoulos,H.;Proedrou,K.;Vovk,V.;andGammerman, A

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    H.; Jaakkola,T.S.;andBarzilay,R.2024

    Quach, V.; Fisch, A.; Schuster, T.; Yala, A.; Sohn, J. H.; Jaakkola,T.S.;andBarzilay,R.2024. ConformalLanguage Modeling. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations. Qwen Team

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. Ren,A.Z.;Dixit,A.;Bodrova,A.;Singh,S.;Tu,S.;Brown, N.; Xu, P.; Takayama, L.; Xia, F.; Varley, J.; Xu, Z.; Sadigh, D.; Zeng, A.; and Majumdar, A

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathemati- cal Reasoning in Open Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300. Shen, X.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, S.; Tan, Z.; Zhao, X.; Yao, L.; Tadiparthi, V.; Mahjoub, H. N.; Moradi Pari, E.; Lee, K.; andChen,T.2026. MetacognitiveSelf-CorrectionforMulti- AgentSystemviaPrototype-GuidedNext-ExecutionRecon- struction. InFind...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Vovk,V.;Gammerman,A.;andShafer,G.2005.Algorithmic Learning in a Random World

    Stop When Enough: Adaptive Early-Stopping for Chain-of- Thought Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10103. Vovk,V.;Gammerman,A.;andShafer,G.2005.Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer. Xi, Z.; Ding, Y.; Chen, W.; Hong, B.; Guo, H.; Wang, J.; Yang, D.; Liao, C.; Guo, X.; He, W.; Gao, S.; Chen, L.; Zheng, R.; Zou, Y.; Gui, T.; Zhang, Q.; Qiu, X.; ...

    work page arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    AgentGym: Evolving Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse Environments

    AgentGym: Evolving Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse Envi- ronments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04151. Xia, Y.; Fan, J.; Chen, W.; Yan, S.; Cong, X.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; and Sun, M

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Cost-Saving LLM Cascades with Early Abstention

    Cost- SavingLLMCascadeswithEarlyAbstention.arXivpreprint arXiv:2502.09054. Zhang,A.;Chen,Y.;Pan,J.;Zhao,C.;Panda,A.;Li,J.;and He,H.2025. ReasoningModelsKnowWhenThey’reRight: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05419. Zhang, B.; Zhu, J.; Shi, Z.; Liu, D.; and Tang, R

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    AgentForesight: Online Auditing for Early Failure Prediction in Multi-Agent Systems

    AgentForesight:OnlineAuditingforEarlyFailurePrediction in Multi-Agent Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.08715. Zhang, D.; Zhoubian, S.; Hu, Z.; Yue, Y.; Dong, Y.; and Tang, J

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Where LLM agents fail and how they can learn from failures,

    Where LLM Agents Fail and How They Can Learn from Failures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25370. Appendix A. Per-Layer Probe AUC Sweeps Probe layers were fixed once per model and used unchanged in all experiments. For Qwen-2.5-7B, a per-layer sweep of the same logistic probe over layers{0,2, . . . ,28}was run on an independent pilot set of rollouts collected ...

    work page arXiv