Papers for

conversational ai designers

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.

Language model agents improve by learning from past verified tasks

ASCENT: Online Test-Time Training of Long-Horizon Agents via Self-Distillation of Verified Experience

Abstract: A large language model (LLM) agent solves long-horizon tasks through many reasoning-action turns, with one verification signal at termination. Deployed agents face streams of related tasks, making their trajectories a natural resource for improvement. In-context adaptation agents store reflections, memories, or skills as text, so reuse depends on retrieving the right experience and on a frozen policy executing it. We study Online Agentic Test-Time Training (OaTTT), which trains the LLM's weights on its own execution trajectories during deployment. The agent executes each task once, in one pass over the stream, and the executed trajectory with its verification result is the only learning signal for weight updates that persist across tasks. Directly imitating or reinforcing the generated tokens of this single attempt destabilizes the policy. We introduce ASCENT (Agentic Self-distillation for Cross-task EvolutioN at Test-time), which instead self-distills verified experience. A stable version of the LLM, its frozen initial copy, receives the verified trajectory as privileged information and predicts next-token distributions along it with this hindsight. Distilling them into persistent LoRA fast weights updates the agent for later tasks, without an external reference solution or stronger teacher. By further removing invalid-action turns, ASCENT distills enhanced privileged experience for more efficient execution. We characterize its population target and the limits of sparse outcome selection. Across ALFWorld, WebShop, and AppWorld at varied model scales, ASCENT improves task success and interaction efficiency as experience accumulates, outperforms online adaptation methods, and transfers to held-out scenes, showing that an agent can consolidate verified experience into its weights without a separate training phase or memory retrieval. Project page: https://artificer-ai-lab.github.io/ASCENT

Sun 4 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Completing complicated tasks often needs many small steps, with only a final success or failure to know if it worked. The authors studied how language model agents can get better while working by learning from their own past efforts and outcomes during use. Instead of copying all actions, their method distills the good parts of past successful experiences into the agent’s brain, updating it gradually. This helps the agent get better over time without needing extra training or memory of old tasks. Their approach works well across different task simulations and can adapt to new situations.
Open → 2610.05303v1

Large language models struggle to weigh trust and accusations in Werewolf games

Do LLMs Trust the Accuser or the Accusation? Measuring Belief Shifts in Werewolf

Abstract: Social-deduction games such as Werewolf are increasingly used to evaluate LLM agents, but existing evaluations often rely on final game outcomes. We propose a belief-shift evaluation benchmark in Werewolf for analyzing communication skills through belief updating. Using LLM-played games, we annotate suspicion and accusation messages and measure how an observing village-side model's beliefs change after each message. We evaluate 40 open-weight LLM configurations on 1,224 annotated messages. Our results show that larger models better distinguish true wolves from villagers based on game history, but accusations still strongly influence their beliefs. Models become more suspicious of the accused target and less suspicious of the accuser, especially when the accuser is trusted, even if the accuser is wolf-aligned. Larger models better resist accusations from accusers they already distrust. Overall, our findings suggest that current open-weight LLMs up to 120B parameters still struggle to integrate accusation content with source trust in strategic communication. Our benchmark and code are available at https://rlg.iis.sinica.edu.tw/papers/werewolf-accusation-benchmark.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Some language models try to play the game Werewolf by listening to players' accusations and deciding who might be a bad player. The paper finds that bigger models are better at spotting the real bad players using game history, but they still get strongly influenced by who is accusing and who is accused. These models tend to trust the accuser more if they are usually trusted, even if that accuser is actually a bad player, and they become more suspicious of the accused. Overall, the models find it hard to balance what is said and who says it in tricky conversations. The researchers made a tool to measure this behavior for many different models.
Open → 2609.12446v1