Papers for

ai service developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Prompt wording changes cause instability in AI model judging

Prompt Lottery in LLM-as-a-Judge: Measuring and Mitigating Sensitivity to Syntactic Rephrasing

Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become a standard for evaluating large language models, yet most approaches implicitly assume that a single judge prompt functions as a stable evaluation instrument. Prior work has primarily explored deliberate prompt modifications such as scoring rubrics, role descriptions, or chain-of-thought reasoning in order to optimize accuracy. In contrast, we investigate whether validated prompt variants intended to preserve evaluation semantics while differing in surface realization (\textit{paraphrastic rephrasings}) yield consistent judgments under a fixed evaluation task. We introduce \textit{Prompt Lottery}, a phenomenon in which paraphrastic rephrasings produce different LLMaJ judgments. Across a large-scale study spanning diverse evaluation tasks, judge families, and model backbones, we find that these variations can alter evaluation outcomes and, in some settings, reverse relative model rankings. A user study with 10 human annotators shows that LLMaJ judges exhibit 6-9$\times$ larger agreement degradation under prompt rephrasings than humans, falling below the generally accepted threshold in usability studies. This indicates that single-prompt evaluation is insufficiently robust for model ranking. Finally, we show that multi-prompt aggregation substantially improves robustness by emphasizing judgments that remain consistent across prompt variants.

Tue 27 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
The paper finds that when large language models judge other AI models, small wording changes in the judging prompts can cause big differences in scores and rankings. The authors call this the Prompt Lottery effect because results seem to depend on which prompt variation is used. They show that these models are much less consistent than humans when given slightly different prompt wordings. To fix this problem, they combine judgments from many prompt versions to get more stable and reliable evaluations.
Open → 2610.38076v1

Llm routing choices leak sensitive information despite content logging off

Sensitive-Topic Leakage Through LLM Routing Metadata: Measurement and Mitigation

Abstract: LLM routers pick a cheap or expensive model per request by its content, and many gateways and some cloud platforms can log that choice with content logging off. We measure this privacy channel beyond token counts, accounting for noisy labels and repeated prompts. We run pre-registered studies on 1.7 million real requests (WildChat-1M, LMSYS-Chat-1M) with two cost/quality routers and a domain router, survey eleven systems' logging, and test post-processing defenses. At matched length, the shift's direction depends on category and router. For RouteLLM at the 50% operating point, harassment and self-harm requests reach the strong model 19 points less often than comparable ones on prompts unseen in exploration, medical requests (exploratory: LLM labels failed their gate) 31 points less often on distinct prompts (both post hoc), and sexual requests 10 points more often (secondary); the other router's four are negative. Twenty RouteLLM decisions separate frequent medical askers with AUC 0.71, exploratory and below the pre-registered primary endpoint's 0.75 (domain router: 0.92, an upper estimate). Per-category length-matched parity with accurate labels removes the gap on real traffic, costing at most 0.2 accuracy points on RouterBench (post hoc), where routers' gaps on sensitive subjects (13-42 points, pre-registered) exceed those of an oracle routing by realized accuracy gain (1-11, post hoc). Per-conversation stickiness, per-user budget bands, and pooled parity fail, the last as categories' shifts differ in size or sign. A post hoc exact per-user rate hides only even-prefix strong counts and forfeits most self-assessed routing value; it preserves odd-position decisions, from which a post hoc log attack reaches AUC 0.73 after 20 RouteLLM requests (exploratory).

Wed 7 OctCryptography and SecurityComputation and Language
The gist
Large language model (LLM) routers decide which AI model to use based on the content of requests, but these routing decisions can leak sensitive user information like medical or harassment topics, even when the main content isn’t logged. The authors studied 1.7 million real requests and found that the type of request influences which model is chosen, creating privacy risks. They tested ways to reduce this information leak, such as adjusting routing decisions to avoid bias, but some leakage remains difficult to eliminate. The findings highlight hidden privacy concerns in AI systems that pick models silently based on what users ask.
Open → 2610.09981v1

Long-horizon AI agents face new staged prompt injection attacks

Blocking at the Boundary: Auditing Long-Horizon Agents against Staged Prompt Injection

Abstract: Long-horizon agents consume external content, invoke tools, and modify persistent state. Indirect prompt injection can exploit task-specific context, propagate across causally connected stages, and alter a consequential action while the workflow continues; we term this staged prompt injection. We build an automated, feedback-guided attack generation pipeline and apply it to Claude Code and Codex in their native runtimes. The confirmed attacks span eight workflow scenarios, seven attack goals, and six injection surfaces, showing that production agents are vulnerable to context-aware, multi-step injection over long horizons. Stopping such attacks requires a decision before each consequential action: input screening and completed-run evaluation cannot locate the intervention point, and existing pre-action methods use incompatible units and labels. We therefore formulate boundary action auditing: given initial context, a trajectory prefix, and a fully specified pending message or tool call, an auditor predicts Pass or Block before its effect occurs. Pairing attacked and benign executions yields a 479-pair, 3,112-unit benchmark. We further propose Path-Aligned Attribution (PAA), a training-free auditor that decomposes pending actions into operative elements and traces what supplied each value and guided each decision. PAA blocks only when the model attributes an unwarranted, material effect on an element to an attacker-reachable source that either provides unqualified steering or conflicts with visible evidence. Under full-benchmark fail-open scoring with Claude Sonnet 5, PAA reaches 86% Block recall at a 6-8% false-block rate (FBR), whereas ARGUS reaches 44-47% recall at 16-33% FBR. Under the same backend, on the tool calls that all three auditors natively support, PAA has higher recall and lower FBR than VIGIL and ARGUS; all paired 95% confidence intervals exclude zero.

Sun 4 OctCryptography and SecurityArtificial Intelligence
The gist
AI agents that perform multi-step tasks using external information can be tricked by attackers who hide bad instructions in earlier steps, causing harmful actions later. The authors call this staged prompt injection and show it can fool popular AI tools in practical settings. They introduce a way to check each important action before it happens, deciding whether to allow or block it, using a method called Path-Aligned Attribution. This approach detects harmful manipulations better than earlier methods while avoiding too many false alarms.
Open → 2610.05163v1

Large language models get stable confidence scores under paraphrasing

Conformal Prediction with Paraphrase-Aware Scoring for LLM Uncertainty Quantification

Abstract: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) for large language models (LLMs) aims to provide reliable measures of predictive confidence, yet current methods are often unstable under meaning-preserving perturbations. Semantically equivalent paraphrases can induce substantial variability in predictive confidence, even for methods with formal guarantees, such as conformal prediction. To address this issue, we propose a paraphrase-aware UQ framework robust to semantic rewordings. Our approach trains a lightweight proxy model on LLM hidden states and aggregates its predictions across paraphrases to construct label-wise nonconformity scores. Under score exchangeability, conformal calibration retains marginal coverage. This guarantee can also hold under test-only rewording, provided that the paraphrase pipeline satisfies an additional distributional alignment condition. We evaluate three settings (normal, fully reworded, and semi-reworded) which apply rewording to neither dataset, both calibration and test datasets, or only the test dataset, respectively. Across seven multiple-choice QA benchmarks and multiple model families, our method produces compact prediction sets with empirical coverage generally near the nominal target, even in the semi-reworded setting. Ablation studies show that the learned proxy accounts for most of the reduction in set size, while paraphrase-augmented training and inference-time aggregation improve stability under rewording. Code is available at https://github.com/Raina-Xin/PA_Score.

Sat 3 OctComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
Large language models often give very different confidence levels on answers when the questions are reworded but mean the same thing. This makes it hard to trust when the model is sure or unsure. The authors present a new method that uses multiple paraphrases of a question and combines their results to better measure uncertainty, keeping formal guarantees intact. Their approach works well even when only test questions are reworded and produces reliable confidence estimates with smaller sets of possible answers.
Open → 2610.04239v1

Confidence aware distillation improves large language model training

Distilling What Matters: Confidence-Aware Selective Distillation for Large Language Models

Abstract: Knowledge Distillation (KD) trains a smaller-capacity student model to imitate a larger-capacity teacher model by matching output distributions, implicitly assuming the teacher to be a reliable oracle. In large language models (LLMs), this assumption often fails: teacher predictions can exhibit high entropy and hallucinations, causing standard KD to degrade well-calibrated student priors. We propose CaRE-KD, a confidence-gated distillation framework that replaces static objectives with uncertainty-adaptive optimization. CaRE-KD has two components: a token-level loss (CaRE-Divergence) that adaptively switches between Forward and Reverse KL divergence based on teacher--student confidence, and a batch-level epistemic rejection mechanism (Revival) that suppresses updates when the teacher is more uncertain than the student. We provide a gradient-level analysis showing how this dual-granularity design induces a conditional calibration mechanism that prior static divergences cannot reproduce. Empirically, across eight teacher--student pairs and eleven benchmarks spanning instruction following, chat alignment, code generation, and mathematical reasoning, CaRE-KD delivers consistent gains over strong baselines (Skewed-KL, $α$--$β$ divergence). Highlights include up to $+3.2$ average ROUGE-L on instruction-following tasks, $+2.1$ pass@1 on MBPP, $+1.7$ accuracy on GSM8k, and $+1.8$ accuracy on CollegeMath over the strongest baseline, with consistent gains in LLM-as-a-judge factuality (up to $+2.5$ per task over Skewed-RKL). Revival further acts as a principled, loss-agnostic plug-in that systematically strengthens existing distillation objectives by filtering epistemically unreliable teacher supervision.

Tue 29 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
When teaching a smaller language model to copy a larger one, the bigger model can sometimes be unsure or make mistakes, which can confuse the smaller model. The authors present a new way to teach that notices when the big model is uncertain and adjusts how the smaller model learns. Their method helps the smaller model get better at tasks like answering questions, writing code, and following instructions. Tests show this approach outperforms previous methods by carefully ignoring unreliable signals during training.
Open → 2609.36734v1

Latent symbolic circuit in large language models grows with more examples

In-Context Learning Amplifies a Latent Symbolic Circuit

Abstract: Large language models can learn abstract rules from just a few in-context examples, but how their internal mechanisms activate as examples accumulate is not well understood. We trace a three-stage symbolic reasoning circuit (abstraction, induction, retrieval) across shot counts in three model families and find it is detectable and functional well before the model achieves high accuracy. Per-head causal contribution grows up to 8x from 1- to 10-shot, and cross-shot activation patching raises accuracy from 1% to 56% at 0-shot and 17% to 88% at 1-shot. Function vectors scaled and injected at 0-shot rescue accuracy up to 86%, largely substituting for the induction stage but depending critically on an intact downstream retrieval stage. The infrastructure for abstract rule-following is present in the weights before any demonstrations; in-context examples, function vectors, and related interventions appear to supply input to the same latent circuit.

Mon 28 SeptMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models can learn new rules simply by seeing a few examples, but it’s unclear how their thinking parts wake up as they get more examples. The authors found a three-part reasoning process inside these models that starts working even before the model gets good at the task. This process gets stronger as the model sees more examples, and by tweaking parts of it, performance can improve a lot even without examples. So, the model’s internal setup for thinking abstractly is already there before it learns, and examples mainly help turn this setup on.
Open → 2609.36265v1

Collaborative AI service dataset enables complex AI workflows integration

A Collaborative Artificial Intelligence as a Service Composition Dataset

Abstract: Artificial Intelligence as a Service (AIaaS) composition is an emerging research area that enables clients to combine multiple AI services to meet complex requirements. A recent extension of this paradigm is collaborative AIaaS composition, where multiple AI services are combined to create a unified solution. Research in this field requires datasets with service descriptions, composition requests, and corresponding composition solutions. However, no dataset contains all this information specifically for collaborative AIaaS composition. Existing datasets target traditional web services or sequential AI workflows and lack the AI-specific attributes required for realistic collaborative composition. To address these challenges, we present a collaborative AIaaS composition dataset containing 25,900 AIaaS services from multiple providers across 12 AI task families, along with 10,000 collaborative service requests. We further develop a Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB)-based collaborative composition algorithm that determines the composability of candidate service combinations prior to composition. Experimental results demonstrate that the dataset supports realistic collaborative AIaaS composition evaluation and related research in service recommendation, selection and QoS prediction. The dataset and implementation are publicly available at: https://github.com/deepakkanneganti9/CAIaaS

Sat 26 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
Combining multiple AI services to solve complex problems is a growing area, but it needs good examples and tools to study how these services work together. The authors created a large dataset that describes many AI services and requests for combining them into bigger solutions. They also developed a method to test which combinations of AI services are likely to work well before actually connecting them. This makes it easier to research and build systems that use many AI tools working together.
Open → 2609.32523v1

Vision language models reduce unneeded visual calls improving accuracy

When Should a VLM Look? Paying Only for Visual Calls That Were Needed and Used

Abstract: Vision-language agents that crop and zoom are trained with rewards that credit a successful tool call, yet a successful call does not show that the model needed to look or used the pixels it received. On our cold-start checkpoint only 10% to 12% of visual calls were both needed and used, and released agents make spurious calls 36% to 87% of the time on individual benchmarks. Outcome rewards, judge rewards, and branch probes each observe one side of this failure, and about two thirds of what an outcome reward pays goes to calls that were neither needed nor used. CounterCredit asks both questions of every image-returning call at its realized pre-call state, using the policy's own gold-answer score. A decision value compares the realized visual branch with answering immediately; an evidence value compares the returned crop with random same-size patches substituted into the same call. A call verified on both earns cashback and every other executed call pays rent; the price is bounded so that every correct trajectory outranks every wrong one, and a dual-channel GRPO advantage keeps the price in its own units. From the same cold start, prompt pool, and budget, CounterCredit reaches 89.5% on V*, 80.2% on HR-Bench-4K, and 76.4% on HR-Bench-8K, 6.3 to 9.4 points above outcome-only GRPO at 1.78 against 1.84 calls per question, and lowers the spurious-call rate to 31% to 36%, the lowest among the agents evaluated. The same recipe lifts a Qwen3-VL-8B base from 75.4 to 80.8 on average.

Sat 19 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Vision-language models often make guesses about images and sometimes look at parts they don’t actually need, which wastes resources and hurts performance. The authors found that many visual calls were unnecessary and proposed a method called CounterCredit that only pays for image views that help answer questions. This method compares the value of looking at a specific part of an image to guessing without seeing it and rewards the model when visual information is genuinely helpful. This approach led to better accuracy and fewer unnecessary image views on multiple tests.
Open → 2609.22910v1

Coding agents improve themselves faster using smart patch comparisons

Self Improvement via Fast Tree-search

Abstract: Coding agents can recursively modify their own implementations, forming a loop of self-improvement. While prior work shows this can boost performance on coding benchmarks, existing approaches are costly and compute-intensive. We introduce a simple, sample-efficient self-improvement framework that significantly improves coding performance under strict budget constraints. We identify evaluation of candidate self-modifications as the main runtime bottleneck since prior approaches estimate their effectiveness by re-running a subset of benchmark tasks with the modified agent, which is time-consuming. We introduce Recursive Self Improvement via Fast Tree-search (SIFT), which augments these downstream task evaluations with an LLM-as-a-judge signal that performs pairwise comparisons between candidate patches, where the win-loss record is aggregated with a regularized Bradley-Terry model, and the resulting strength scores drive rank-based parent sampling inside a lightweight disaggregated tree search. Expensive downstream task evaluations are reserved only for the most promising nodes. Using a fully disaggregated tree search pipeline, the judge scores provide intermediate signal to guide exploration on promising candidate patches without being bottlenecked by slow evaluation runs. SIFT outperforms existing tree-search based self-evolution frameworks on the full Polyglot benchmark with significantly lower resource requirements in terms of CPU hours, wall clock time, and API cost.

Thu 17 SeptArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Improving computer programs that can change their own code usually takes a lot of time and computer power because each change has to be tested thoroughly. The authors introduce a new method called SIFT that uses a kind of smart judging system to quickly compare code changes before deciding which ones to fully test. This approach saves time and computing resources while still finding better code improvements. Their method performed better on a popular test set while using less CPU time and money.
Open → 2609.19526v1

Recast assigns reward importance by timestep in diffusion training

ReCAST: Reward Credit Assignment across Timesteps for Online Diffusion Reinforcement

Abstract: Training diffusion models with multiple rewards requires distinguishing user preference from reward informativeness. User preference determines how much each reward should contribute to the overall objective; reward informativeness determines when its feedback is useful during denoising. Some rewards can meaningfully evaluate a sample as soon as global structure emerges, but others become informative only when the sample is nearly clean. To address both questions jointly, we propose ReCAST (Reward Credit ASsignment across T}imesteps), the first method, to our knowledge, for per-reward, timestep-dependent credit assignment in diffusion reward fine-tuning. ReCAST separates user preferences from temporal allocation through a reward-by-timestep weight matrix $W$, whose row sums match the user-specified reward budgets $λ$, while its column sums are equal, assigning the same total weight to each denoising step. Under these marginal constraints, ReCAST allocates weight according to each reward's informativeness, quantified by its Rényi discriminability gain at each step. These gains telescope to the total discriminability between the reward-induced positive policy and the current policy, providing a basis for temporal credit assignment. We evaluate ReCAST by training SD3.5-Medium under two distinct four-reward settings, each across five reward budgets $λ$. ReCAST improves the training rewards in one setting and matches them in the other, improves every held-out judge in both, and is preferred by an independent LLM-as-a-Judge. Together, these results show that ReCAST yields improvements that generalize beyond the training rewards and support its core principle: assigning each reward greater weight at the denoising timesteps where its feedback is most informative.

Fri 11 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Training AI models to create images or data involves fine-tuning them with rewards that measure quality, but these rewards matter differently at each step of the process. The authors propose ReCAST, a method that figures out when and how much to trust each reward at each step, based on how informative that reward is. This helps the model learn better by giving more attention to useful rewards at the right moments. Their tests show it improves outcomes and generalizes well beyond just the rewards used during training.
Open → 2609.13425v1