automated customer service teams

Abstract: While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) excel at complex reasoning, alignment through reinforcement learning often induces systemic overconfidence. In production environments, where logits may be unavailable, robust black-box uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for trustworthiness and safety. Focusing on question-answering for LRMs, we show that existing black-box methods, such as paraphrase-based self-consistency and confidence verbalization, offer little to no improvement over simple repeated sampling, suggesting that alignment suppresses useful output variability. We introduce prompt-level relaxation operators that broaden the model's effective output distribution by approximating the effect of an optimal policy obtained with a stronger KL-regularization parameter, hence closer to the reference model. Theoretically, we demonstrate that relaxation improves calibration. We propose Jailbreak for Uncertainty (J4U), a jailbreak-derived technique for UQ that empirically reproduces the behavioral signatures predicted by our relaxation theory. Across 3 datasets and 4 LRMs, including a closed-source production model, J4U's improvement over repeated sampling achieves statistical significance in up to 6 times more LRM-dataset-metric settings than the strongest black-box UQ state-of-the-art baseline we evaluate, with average ECE reductions up to 5 times larger. These results provide a practical tool for UQ in black-box LRM deployment.

Abstract: Feedback-based on-policy self-distillation has emerged as a promising approach for enabling foundation models, more specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), to learn from their own outputs under external feedback, with a single model serving as both teacher and student. However, such methods can exhibit unstable optimization, conducive to performance collapse during training. To address this limitation, we propose FIRE (Fisher-Informed REcalibration), a dual-branch framework that recalibrates the supervision applied to correct and incorrect on-policy outputs during fine-tuning. For correct responses, FIRE replaces self-distillation with re-weighted on-policy SFT, while for incorrect ones FIRE identifies feedback components that disproportionately influence the teacher-induced update and recalibrates the feedback-conditioned target accordingly. Both branches are influenced by a token-level radius derived in part from a softmax Fisher trace. FIRE separates which direction feedback should move the model from how far the model should move in that direction, while leaving well-behaved feedback supervision unchanged. Our experiments demonstrate that FIRE provides substantially more stable self-distillation while maintaining strong downstream performance, particularly in settings where standard feedback-conditioned distillation becomes unstable.

Abstract: A tool-using language-model agent deployed over a long stream of tasks receives no reward, so it cannot tell whether it succeeded, cannot safely retry, and cannot label the experience it needs to improve. We present SelfSuite, in which the agent's own base model, given only the world's public materials, designs a small evaluation suite of weighted judges and grounded per-task briefs, freezes it, and uses it to gate a keep-best retry and to label a typed, outcome-tracked memory. On matched five-repeat benchmarks over tau2-bench and AppWorld, SelfSuite scores above the plain agent without any labels, matches methods given ten expert labels on tau2-bench, and trails Agentic Context Engineering (ACE) on AppWorld, where code execution gives a direct success signal. In an ablation campaign run on the same tasks, it is above label-free ACE in every repeat, and the gated second attempt is the only component whose removal hurts in every repeat. We also simulate a subject-matter expert who grades ten onboarding tasks per world. Using those labels to calibrate SelfSuite's evaluator gives a small, consistent gain, and using them to warm up ACE's memory lifts ACE to tie calibrated SelfSuite. A single-run study on a second model family shows the same ordering.

Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems capable of solving complex tasks through multi-turn planning, tool use, verification, and memory updates. However, learning agentic systems remains difficult due to two fundamental challenges, i.e., (1) long-horizon credit assignment, where supervision is available only at the final outcome, and (2) imbalanced data distributions, where dominant data patterns bias optimization and weaken adaptation to rare but informative reasoning behaviors. In this paper, we propose Fair Multi-Level Preference Optimization (Fair-MPO or $Φ$-MPO), a new preference optimization framework for agentic learning. We first show that Multi-Level Preference Optimization provides a principled and more computationally efficient framework for long-horizon reasoning. Then, we introduce a Fair Multi-Level Objective that addresses imbalance in agentic learning. We provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis demonstrating that our approach addresses both long-horizon reasoning and data imbalance. Our experiments on agentic reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves State-of-the-Art (SOTA) performance.

Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents built on the ReAct pattern concentrate four responsibilities in one model: selecting a strategy, choosing each action, formatting it, and judging whether the result is adequate. Nothing outside the generative loop can reject its output, so an agent that cannot make progress does not report failure; it runs until an external budget stops it. We propose treating verification as an architectural layer by adapting the V-model from software engineering: specification levels descend from requirements to individual steps, each level is paired with a dedicated verifier, a deterministic controller enforces every verdict, and only verification outcomes write to memory, so a rejection localizes the level that introduced the fault and an agent halts by declining rather than by exhaustion. Each verifier separates a zero-cost deterministic \emph{gate} from an optional LLM \emph{judge}, so the contribution and cost of each can be measured independently. We report a pilot implementing the acceptance- and unit-level verifier pairs, comparing five configurations that share one executor, tool set, and scorer and differ only in verification, on the four-hop stratum of MuSiQue with an 8B-parameter backbone. Across 47 executions, the two unverified configurations answered none of ten questions, every run ending at a step cap or provider token limit; the verified configuration without a planner answered eight and abstained on the rest. Deterministic gates produced eight of the nine observed corrections at zero marginal cost, and planning degraded performance once verification was present. These results characterize termination behavior, not accuracy at scale; we outline a twelve-month plan to complete and evaluate the full architecture, including the integration-level pair the pilot omits.

Abstract: Effective communication between users and AI agents is essential for human-AI collaboration. The XY problem is a well-known communication pitfall where a person asks about their attempted solution rather than their actual problem. We extend prior sycophancy evaluation to the XY problem in agentic settings, evaluating whether agents can resist plausible but misleading suggestions from users and communicate their reasoning. We introduce XYEval, a meta-evaluation framework that can transform an existing benchmark into an XY problem evaluation. We evaluate five models across six diverse benchmark suites. Agents suffer large XY drops under XY mutation across benchmarks, with relative drops reaching up to 46.7%. With $τ^2$-bench, we further show that agent performance drops more when encountering a pedantic user who requires detailed explanations before approving a better solution. Our findings suggest that current agents lack the ability to effectively reason and communicate when facing misleading suggestions. A simple system instruction baseline that encourages awareness of XY problems only offers partial mitigation. Extensive trace analyses provide behavioral insights into how and why these XY drops occur across execution trajectories. Our results show that mitigating the XY problem remains challenging, requiring agents to both recognize user misdirection and clearly communicate the underlying problem.