Papers for

product teams building ai assistants

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.

Deep research agents struggle with vague user queries

How Specific Do I Need to Be? Effects of User Query Underspecification on Deep Research Agents

Abstract: Deep research agents (DRAs) conduct long-horizon reasoning, search, and literature synthesis to provide long-form answers to complex, domain-specific questions. These agents are typically trained and evaluated on fully specified user queries. However, real-world user queries can often be underspecified. We introduce UNDERSPEC-DR, a framework for systematically evaluating how underspecified queries affect agents' final answer quality and intermediate search behavior. Across three DRAs we evaluated, underspecification substantially reduces how well DRA's answers fulfill users' information needs, even though they remain grounded in cited evidence. Our analysis of intermediate search behavior suggests a possible explanation: DRAs conduct broader searches that draw less on the original user query but rely more on their learned prior during training, which can be misaligned with users' intent. Our findings reveal the vulnerability of current DRAs to underspecified user queries and inform future efforts to build DRAs that proactively recognize when additional user input is needed to reliably complete deep research tasks.

Thu 29 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Deep research agents are computer tools that answer complex questions by looking up and interpreting information. The authors found that when questions are not specific enough, these agents give lower-quality answers even though they still use real sources. This happens because the agents search wider and rely more on what they learned before rather than the user’s exact question. Their work shows these agents need ways to detect unclear questions and ask users for more details to improve answers.
Open → 2610.39413v1

Probepo improves reinforcement learning credit assignment in large language models

ProbePO: Sparse Probes, Redistributed Credit for Critic-Free LLM Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards assigns one terminal reward to an entire reasoning trajectory, obscuring how individual reasoning steps contributed to the outcome. GRPO broadcasts a group-normalized advantage to every response token, while finer-grained approaches often rely on dense auxiliary rollouts or branching schemes that can also alter the data used for policy updates. We cast the missing middle as budgeted measurement: with a limited rollout budget, which partial solutions should be evaluated, and how should their value estimates refine credit? ProbePO selects partial-solution states with a reward-free uncertainty score and estimates their expected verifier rewards under a capped continuation budget. ProbePO redistributes, rather than replaces, GRPO's trajectory-level advantage across tokens while preserving each trajectory's mean token-level advantage; probe continuations serve only as measurements. Across three DeepSeekMath and Qwen-family models spanning 1.5B-7B parameters, ProbePO consistently outperforms GRPO and achieves the highest accuracy among the four evaluated methods in 16 of 18 model-benchmark comparisons. Against dense-probing VinePPO on DeepSeekMath-7B, ProbePO achieves higher accuracy on all six benchmarks with 76% less end-to-end training time.

Sat 17 OctMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
Rewarding an entire answer all at once hides which parts actually helped. The authors introduce ProbePO, a way to smartly check parts of a reasoning process without needing many extra tries, improving feedback to the model. This helps train models to give better answers faster and more accurately than previous methods. They tested ProbePO on several large language models and math benchmarks, consistently getting better results with less training time.
Open → 2610.24515v1

Importance aware weighting improves rubric based ai evaluation scores

Not All Criteria Matter: Importance-Aware Criteria Weighting for Rubric-Based LLM Evaluation

Abstract: Rubric-based evaluation assesses the responses of large language models (LLMs) by aggregating the verification results of explicit criteria, yet not all criteria matter equally. However, existing methods commonly aggregate the verification results with uniform weighting, which assigns minor and overlapping criteria the same weight as essential ones and thus produces misleading evaluation scores. Although some methods prompt an LLM to directly assign weights, direct weighting requires a holistic judgment over all criteria that LLMs struggle to make reliably. To address these limitations, we propose Importance-Aware Criteria Weighting (ICW), which derives the weights of criteria from pairwise importance comparisons made by an LLM. Specifically, ICW transforms the holistic judgment over all criteria into a series of pairwise importance comparisons, checks and revises inconsistent comparisons, and derives the weights from the principal eigenvector of the comparison matrix. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ICW consistently outperforms uniform weighting and competitive weighting methods, and translates into better policy models in downstream reinforcement learning.

Wed 14 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Evaluating large AI language models often involves checking several criteria and giving each equal importance, but not all criteria matter the same. The authors propose a new method that asks the AI to compare criteria two at a time to figure out which are more important, making the overall evaluation fairer. This method fixes inconsistencies and uses math to combine the comparisons into weights for each criterion. Their tests show this approach works better than treating all criteria equally or other weighting methods. It also helps improve AI models that learn from these evaluations.
Open → 2610.19915v1

Graph attack methods degrade retrieval augmented large language model answers

GraphRAG-LTM: A Layered Threat Modeling Framework for Attacks on Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Abstract: Graph retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) uses document-derived knowledge graphs to assemble evidence for large language model (LLM) answers. Its security depends on both the seed chunks retrieved for a query and the graph evidence assembled from them, yet attacks on this evidence path remain underexplored. We introduce GraphRAG-LTM, a Layered Threat Modeling framework that tests three nested levels of attacker access. BB Query uses ranking feedback to make query edits under a semantic-similarity constraint and demote relevant seed chunks. WB Query uses retriever gradients for the same objective. Graph-aware WB keeps the white-box adversarial query and deletes bridge triplets from the query-specific evidence graph, disrupting multi-hop evidence propagation through localized graph edits. Across datasets, retrievers, and LLM backbones, rank feedback alone reduces answer quality, gradient access strengthens query attacks, and bridge-triplet deletion further impairs supporting-fact retrieval. Further analyses show how seed retrieval and graph evidence jointly contribute to these failures.

Wed 14 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Some AI tools use graphs made from documents to help answer questions. The paper shows ways attackers can trick these tools by changing the search queries or editing parts of the graph. This makes the AI give worse answers or miss important facts. The authors built a system to test different attack levels and found that attacks using more information and graph changes are more harmful. This helps understand where these AI tools are vulnerable.
Open → 2610.19549v1