Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Linear probes on LLM hidden states can predict agent failure within the first rounds, enabling a cascade that saves up to 60.2% of generated tokens.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 08:13 UTC pith:D6LZTTW3

load-bearing objection Useful, well-calibrated early-stopping cascade; just re-derive the Qwen3-1.7B layer pick before trusting the headline WebShop savings. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06503 v2 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 , Jinghao Lin , Xuan Wang , Hao Sun This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords early stoppingLLM agentslinear probeshidden statesrecall controlClopper-Pearson calibrationinference cost reduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that internal activations of an LLM agent carry an early warning: a lightweight linear probe can tell from the first interaction round whether the episode is already doomed. The authors build this signal into a recall-controlled abort cascade—a sequence of gates on the first six rounds, each calibrated so that successful episodes pass at a user-chosen global rate. They report saving up to 60.2% of generated tokens at 90% recall across two text environments and three model families, with achieved recall within one standard deviation of target in all 24 configurations. The reason to care: failed multi-step trajectories waste large inference budgets, and this offers an auditable early-stopping rule that does not silently destroy task success. The paper also quantifies how much successful labeled data is required to certify a given recall promise.

Core claim

The central claim is that eventual success or failure of a frozen LLM agent is linearly decodable from the residual-stream hidden state at the final token of each early action, often at round 1, before observable behavior becomes informative. This signal is turned into a cascade of per-round gates, each threshold calibrated with Clopper-Pearson lower bounds so a per-round recall budget is met, and the budget vector is jointly searched on a validation split to maximize token savings under a global success-recall floor. Across a 2x3 matrix of environments and models, the cascade beats the best single-gate baseline in every cell (1.5x to 8.8x more savings at 90% recall), keeps achieved recall w

What carries the argument

The central object is the recall-controlled abort cascade: at each of the first six interaction rounds, a linear probe reads the final-token hidden state of the agent's action and a Clopper-Pearson-calibrated gate aborts the episode if the failure score exceeds a threshold. The per-round recall budgets are jointly searched over a 6^6 grid to maximize compute savings subject to a global recall floor, with a safety margin and an optional independent post-selection certificate. The cascade's role is to convert a per-round failure score into an episode-level guarantee whose risk accumulation is explicitly controlled.

Load-bearing premise

The whole savings estimate rests on the assumption that hidden states obtained by replaying logged trajectories through the frozen policy look like hidden states the same policy produces during live decoding; the paper only evaluates offline replay and notes that the online extraction path currently requires disabling chunked prefill and persisting activations to shared storage.

What would settle it

Deploy the identical cascade with a serving stack that streams selected-layer hidden states during live decoding, run the same TextCraft and WebShop tasks online, and compare per-round probe scores and achieved recall to the offline replay numbers; if online activation statistics differ enough that achieved global recall drops below target or savings vanish, the central equivalence fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, LLM agent serving can save a large fraction of inference tokens by aborting doomed episodes early at a user-specified success-recall floor.
  • The cascade dominates single-gate policies in every evaluated cell, confirming that distributing the recall budget across rounds is the main source of savings.
  • Internal activations retain predictive information beyond a set of surface behavioral features, and the early signal appears before behavior-only monitoring becomes informative.
  • The certification result quantifies how much labeled successful data is needed to promise given recall levels, making data requirements operational before deployment.
  • When the signal is weak, the method approaches a no-op, so the failure mode is conservative rather than aggressive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same saved compute could be reallocated to retries or additional sampling, effectively turning the cascade into a test-time-scaling policy; the paper notes this but leaves reward and latency effects unmeasured.
  • The per-round probe signal might transfer to other long-horizon LLM agent tasks such as tool use or coding, but this extension is untested and would require recalibration.
  • The budget-search grid and fixed margin could be refined with a finer optimization of rounds or adaptive thresholding based on alive-episode curves, at higher search cost.
  • If online activation statistics deviate from teacher-forced replay, the probe and calibration may need to be updated per deployment, so an online comparison is a natural next step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using lightweight linear probes on LLM hidden states at early interaction rounds to predict eventual task failure in LLM-agent episodes, and wraps these probes into a cascade of Clopper–Pearson-calibrated per-round gates. Per-round recall budgets are searched on a validation split under a global success-recall constraint, with an optional independent post-selection certificate. The method is evaluated on a 2×3 matrix (TextCraft/WebShop × Qwen-2.5-7B, Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen3-1.7B) plus an ALFWorld stress test, reporting up to 60.2% and 54.9% generated-token savings at 90% recall, with achieved recall within one standard deviation of target in all 24 configurations. The paper also characterizes the sample complexity of certification and is transparent about margins, violations, and unmeasured systems costs.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a practical and auditable early-stopping rule that converts internal-state signals into controlled inference-cost savings, with distribution-free, finite-sample recall guarantees. The statistical machinery is standard and largely used correctly: task-grouped cross-fitting, Clopper–Pearson gates, validation-based budget search, a margin rule, and an optional exact post-selection certificate. The paper is unusually honest about margin violations, data costs, and the fact that wall-clock latency is unmeasured. The code release, if it matches the manuscript, would further strengthen reproducibility. The main concerns are the selection of the probe layer for one headline model and the unvalidated equivalence between teacher-forced replay and online decoding; both are load-bearing for the strongest reported claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A / Experimental Setup] For Qwen3-1.7B, the probe layer was selected on 'the full-matrix run' sweeping layers {4,8,...,28}, selecting layer 28, whereas for Qwen-2.5-7B an independent pilot set was used. The probe layer is a hyperparameter of the feature extractor; selecting it on the same episodes that later enter the cascade evaluation can exploit per-layer noise and inflate the WebShop Qwen3-1.7B results in Table 1 (54.9% savings at 0.90 recall; 41.5% at 0.95). Task-level cross-fitting of the probe does not remove this leakage. I request a rerun with layer choice fixed on an independent pilot (or at minimum a layer-sensitivity analysis) for Qwen3-1.7B, and clarification for Llama-3.2-3B, whose sweep description also does not state an independent pilot.
  2. [Method, 'Per-Round Failure Scorers'; Discussion, 'Scope and system realization'] All probe features are recovered by teacher-forced replay over logged trajectories, and the documented vLLM extraction path 'persists activations to shared storage and currently requires chunked prefill to be disabled.' The validity of the probe thresholds, budget search, and savings estimates depends on the equivalence of offline replay hidden states and online autoregressive hidden states. The paper does not test this equivalence. Because Figure 3's AUCs and Table 1's savings are computed offline, a shift in activation statistics during unconstrained decoding could invalidate the calibration and the compute-savings claim. Please add an online pilot, or at least an explicit empirical comparison of replay versus online activations for one representative cell.
  3. [Abstract; Method, 'Recall Budget Search Under a Global Constraint'] The abstract says the design 'ensures' the global recall rate and provides an 'exact post-selection recall guarantee.' As the paper itself acknowledges, the default margin rule (δ=0.02) provides only empirical control: Appendix D, Table 4 shows 1–4 of 20 seeds below target even with δ=0.02, and Table 5 shows ALFWorld Qwen-2.5-7B at target 0.90 with mean test recall 0.891±0.047. The exact guarantee exists only when the optional independent certificate is used and passes. The claims should consistently distinguish margin-based empirical control from certified control, rather than implying a formal guarantee in the default setting.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Results, 'Main Results: Cascade vs. Single Gate'] The sentence 'Section separately isolates the value of the activation signal' appears to refer to Figure 4; the cross-reference is missing. Likewise, 'the independent post-selection certificate of Section exists' is an incomplete sentence.
  2. [Abstract / Method] Minor typographical issues: 'surfacescorer' should be 'surface scorer'; 'the searc' fragment appears in the reader's note but not in the manuscript text; some equations in Appendix F have inconsistent spacing (e.g., 'Cdata').
  3. [Figure 2 / Appendix D] Figure 2's axis labels are cramped and the sample-size labels '114, 149, 299' are not clearly tied to the curve; a table or annotated markers would improve readability. Appendix D's 'shift identity' is correct but deserves one more sentence explaining why it holds for the discrete budget grid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; held-out evaluation is self-contained, though the Qwen3-1.7B layer sweep is a non-circular selection-leakage concern.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Probe scores are produced by task-grouped cross-fitting, gate thresholds are Clopper-Pearson-calibrated on a dedicated calibration split, budget vectors are searched on a disjoint validation split, and all reported savings/recall figures come from a held-out test split (Method; Algorithm 1). No prediction is defined in terms of the target quantity, and the post-selection certificate is a standard Clopper-Pearson bound on an independent sample rather than an imported conclusion. The single-gate baseline is explicitly a special case of the cascade search space, but the paper reports test-split dominance, which is an empirical comparison rather than a construction. The one substantive concern in the skeptical review is Appendix A: 'For Qwen3-1.7B, the full-matrix run swept layers {4,8,...,28} and selected layer 28,' meaning the probe layer for the strongest WebShop cell was not chosen on an independent pilot set. This is selection leakage/overfitting risk that can inflate AUC and savings, but it is not a circular step: the selected layer does not make the reported 54.9% savings equal to the fitted value by construction. Similarly, the disclosed teacher-forced replay limitation affects external validity (offline versus online activation statistics) but is not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified; the score reflects the real but non-circular hyperparameter-selection concern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains 5 fitted or hand-selected parameter groups and 5 explicit or implicit assumptions. There are no invented physical or architectural entities; the cascade is a composition of existing statistical tools. The main data-fitted quantities are the recall budget vector and the per-model probe layer, with the Qwen3 layer choice presenting a selection-bias concern.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-round recall budgets (t_1,...,t_6) = Selected per cell and seed by validation search over grid {0.85, 0.90, 0.95, 0.98, 0.99, 1.0}; deployed values not repor
    The budget vector is the core fitted hyperparameter: it determines which rounds abort and how much compute is saved. It is selected on validation data, not derived.
  • Margin delta = 0.02
    Fixed a priori; feasibility condition requires validation recall >= target + delta. Appendix D shows per-seed violation rates vary with delta, so this hand-chosen constant shapes the recall guarantee.
  • Probe layer per model = Llama-3.2-3B: layer 14; Qwen-2.5-7B: layer 20 (independent pilot); Qwen3-1.7B: layer 28 (full-matrix sweep)
    Layer choice is selected by probe-AUC sweeps and materially changes signal quality. For Qwen3-1.7B the selection used the full-matrix run, creating a selection-leak concern.
  • Probe regularization C and gate window R_g = C=1, R_g=6
    Hand-chosen constants; R_g bounds the cascade and C sets probe capacity. Neither is swept in the main results.
  • Clopper-Pearson confidence levels alpha and alpha_m = 0.05 per gate; 0.05 certification
    Standard choices; alpha controls per-gate conservatism and alpha_m controls the certification sample complexity.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Clopper-Pearson exact binomial lower confidence bounds are valid for per-round survival rates when calibration episodes are exchangeable and the cascade does not adapt to calibration outcomes.
    Used in Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1; the bound is exact but only covers the calibration draw, not the subsequent search.
  • domain assumption Task-grouped splits create exchangeable calibration/validation/test episodes with no task leakage.
    Invoked in Method, 'Recall Budget Search' and Experimental Setup; if tasks are not exchangeable or tasks leak across splits, the calibration and certificate are invalid.
  • domain assumption The residual-stream hidden state at the final token of the agent's action, at a fixed layer, retains linearly decodable information about eventual episode success/failure under teacher-forced replay.
    Central to the probe signal; Section 'Per-Round Failure Scorers.' The paper provides empirical AUC evidence but no mechanism; replay/online equivalence is unverified (Discussion).
  • domain assumption The logged trajectories and labels from TextCraft, WebShop, and ALFWorld are representative of deployment conditions (no distribution shift).
    Assumed throughout; the paper states in Discussion that under distribution shift 'the probe, thresholds, and global control must all be refreshed.'
  • domain assumption Surface behavioral features are a fair representative of behavior-only monitoring.
    Used to conclude that behavior-only monitoring is weaker; the paper acknowledges richer structured-trace monitors are untested.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18532 in / 16875 out tokens · 148071 ms · 2026-08-02T08:13:22.174395+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents often waste inference compute by continuing multi-step trajectories that are already doomed to fail. We study early failure prediction and inference-time early stopping for LLM agents using hidden-state probes. Lightweight linear probes on internal activations predict eventual task failure from the first interaction round, substantially earlier than agent-monitoring methods based only on observable behavior. We turn this signal into a recall-controlled abort cascade for reducing LLM agent inference costs. The cascade applies a distribution-free calibrated failure detector at each early interaction round and jointly optimizes per-round recall budgets. This design ensures that eventually successful episodes survive all early-stopping gates at a user-specified global recall rate. After selection, the cascade is frozen and certified on independent data, providing an exact post-selection recall guarantee. We evaluate the method on TextCraft and WebShop with Qwen-2.5-7B, Llama-3.2-3B, and Qwen3-1.7B. The proposed LLM agent early-stopping cascade outperforms the best single-gate baseline in every model-environment pair, saving 1.5-8.8 times more compute at a 90% recall target. Achieved recall remains within one standard deviation of its target in all 24 configurations. The strongest settings reduce generated tokens by 60.2% on TextCraft and 54.9% on WebShop at 90% recall, while retaining savings of 45.0% and 41.5% at 95% recall. Behavior-only monitoring is consistently weaker, and adding behavioral features to hidden-state probes provides no further gain. We also characterize the sample complexity required to certify high-recall early-stopping policies. The code will be released soon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06503 by Hao Sun, Jinghao Lin, 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 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sample complexity of the global recall certificate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_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 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-fitted post-generation probe AUC for predicting eventual episode failure at each gate round in the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scorer ablation at target global recall 0.95 across the full 2 × 3 matrix (mean ± one standard deviation over 20 seeds). “Stacking” concatenates surface features onto the activation probe. precisely to convert this empirical tracking into a formal guarantee whenever one is required. The savings in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.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 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Achieved global success recall of the searched cascade versus its target in the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.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 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-layer probe-AUC sweeps used to fix the probe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.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 ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unmargined (δ = 0) cascade on TextCraft with Qwen-2.5-7B over a fine target grid (mean ± one standard deviation, 20 seeds). Left: test recall hugs the diagonal, dip￾ping below it at several targets; the margin primarily absorbs per-seed dispersion around the mean ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of episodes still running at each gate round [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Compute savings versus global recall target for all three allocations and matrix cells. The cascade dominates single-gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Real-Time Detection and Repair of LLM Agent Failures

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0

    A telemetry-based watchdog with deterministic verification detects most injected failures and repairs 45% of real failures, raising task success from 52% to 73%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    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

    2024

  2. [5]

    Bates, S.; Angelopoulos, A.; Lei, L.; Malik, J.; and Jordan, M

    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

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    Chen, Y.; et al

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

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Cherian, J

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [10]

    Guan, X.; Zeng, J.; Xin, C.; Lu, Y.; Lin, H.; Han, X.; Sun, L.; and Meng, F

    POIROT: Interrogating Agents for Failure Detection in Multi-Agent Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02282. Guan, X.; Zeng, J.; Xin, C.; Lu, Y.; Lin, H.; Han, X.; Sun, L.; and Meng, F

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [11]

    Ji, Z.; Chen, D.; Ishii, E.; Cahyawijaya, S.; Bang, Y.; Wilie, B.; and Fung, P

    PrefixGuard: From LLM-Agent Traces to Online Failure-Warning Monitors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06455. Ji, Z.; Chen, D.; Ishii, E.; Cahyawijaya, S.; Bang, Y.; Wilie, B.; and Fung, P

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [12]

    InProceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLPWorkshop:AnalyzingandInterpretingNeural Networks for NLP

    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...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [13]

    Lei,J.;G’Sell,M.;Rinaldo,A.;Tibshirani,R.J.;andWasser- man,L.2018

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01365

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [15]

    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,...

    2024

  11. [16]

    Lu, Q.; Ding, L.; Cao, S.; Liu, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, J.; and Tao, D

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [17]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP

    Runaway is Ashamed, But Helpful: On the Early-ExitBehaviorofLargeLanguageModel-basedAgents in Embodied Environments. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP. Ma,E.;Zhou,Y.;Huang,W.-C.;Yang,J.;Ma,H.;Wang,Z.; Li,C.;Miao,C.;Yu,P.S.;andWang,Z.2026.MEMPROBE: Probing Long-Term Agent Memory via Hidden User-State Recovery.arXiv preprint...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [18]

    Mao, M.; Yin, B.; Zhu, Y.; and Fang, X

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [19]

    Marks, S.; and Tegmark, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [20]

    InConference on Lan- guage Modeling

    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.2024.Llama-3.2-3BModelCard.https://huggingface. co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-3B. Miao,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20272

    An Efficient InferenceFrameworkforEarly-ExitLargeLanguageModels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20272. Mittapalli, V.; Dani, S. J.; Pilli, S. S.; Ansu, S.; Teymoo- rianfard, M.; Dernoncourt, F.; Chen, H.; Wang, Y.; Rossi, R.A.;andAhmed,N.K.2026. TRACE:TrajectoryReason- ing through Adaptive Cross-Step Evidence Aggregation for LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:260...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [22]

    Papadopoulos,H.;Proedrou,K.;Vovk,V.;andGammerman, A

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [23]

    Prasad, A.; Koller, A.; Hartmann, M.; Clark, P.; Sabharwal, A.; Bansal, M.; and Khot, T

    AgentStop: Terminating Local AI Agents Early to Save Energy in Consumer Devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15206. Prasad, A.; Koller, A.; Hartmann, M.; Clark, P.; Sabharwal, A.; Bansal, M.; and Khot, T

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [24]

    Quach, V.; Fisch, A.; Schuster, T.; Yala, A.; Sohn, J

    Recur- sive Introspection: Teaching Language Model Agents How to Self-Improve.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18219. 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [25]

    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

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [26]

    InConference on Robot Learning

    Robots That Ask forHelp:UncertaintyAlignmentforLargeLanguageModel Planners. InConference on Robot Learning. Römer,R.;Kobras,A.;Worbis,L.;andSchoellig,A.P.2025. FailurePredictionatRuntimeforGenerativeRobotPolicies. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Schuster, T.; Fisch, A.; Gupta, J.; Dehghani, M.; Bahri, D.; Tran, V. Q.; Tay, Y.; and Metzler, D

    2025

  22. [27]

    Shen, X.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, S.; Tan, Z.; Zhao, X.; Yao, L.; Tadiparthi, V.; Mahjoub, H

    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...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [28]

    Sun, R.; Cheng, W.; Li, D.; Chen, H.; and Wang, W

    Semantic Early-Stopping for Iterative LLM Agent Loops.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27009. Sun, R.; Cheng, W.; Li, D.; Chen, H.; and Wang, W

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [29]

    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.; ...

    arXiv 2005

  25. [30]

    Xia, Y.; Fan, J.; Chen, W.; Yan, S.; Cong, X.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Lin, Y.; Liu, Z.; and Sun, M

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [31]

    Zhang,A.;Chen,Y.;Pan,J.;Zhao,C.;Panda,A.;Li,J.;and He,H.2025

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [32]

    Zhang, D.; Zhoubian, S.; Hu, Z.; Yue, Y.; Dong, Y.; and Tang, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [33]

    Zhu, K.; Liu, Z.; Li, B.; Tian, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Han, P.; Xie, Q.; Cui, F.; Zhang, W.; Ma, X.; Yu, X.; Ramesh, G.; Wu, J.; Liu, Z.; Lu, P.; Zou, J.; and You, J

    GRADE: Graph Representation of LLM Agent Dependency and Execution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.22741. Zhu, K.; Liu, Z.; Li, B.; Tian, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Han, P.; Xie, Q.; Cui, F.; Zhang, W.; Ma, X.; Yu, X.; Ramesh, G.; Wu, J.; Liu, Z.; Lu, P.; Zou, J.; and You, J

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25370

    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 then used un- changed in all recall-target and cascade evaluations. For Qwen-2.5-7B, a per-layer sweep over layers{0,2, . . . ,28} was run on an independent pilot set collected befor...

    arXiv

  30. [35]

    ρ⋆ δ= 0δ= 0.01δ= 0.02 0.90 8 7 4 0.91 8 6 3 0.92 7 4 2 0.93 6 4 1 0.94 8 4 3 0.95 10 7 1 0.96 12 5 3 0.97 10 8 3 Table4:Numberofseeds(of20)whosetestrecallfallsbelow the target, per margin size; all columns are derived from the singleunmarginedsweepviatheshiftidentity.δ= 0.02caps violations at4/20everywhere, and at3/20forρ ⋆ ≥0.91. E. ALFWorld Stress-Test ...

    2016

  31. [2016]

    Angelopoulos, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [2023]

    Chen, S.; et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [2024]

    InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    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-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [2025]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL

    Knowing Before Saying: LLM Representations Encode In- 1https://vllm.ai/blog/2026-03-30-extract-hidden-states formation About Chain-of-Thought Success Before Com- pletion. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL. Aggarwal, P.; Madaan, A.; Yang, Y.; and Mausam

    2026

  35. [2026]

    Barke, S.; Goyal, A.; Khare, A.; Singh, A.; Nath, S.; and Bansal, C

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv