arXiv:2607.26119v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large reasoning models trained via reinforcement learning (RL) have been increasingly shown to outperform their supervised fine-tuned (SFT) counterparts on mathematical reasoning tasks; Yet the mechanistic basis for this advantage remains unclear. We therefore ask, what internal representational differences enable RL models’ superior performance? Our work presents two converging lines of evidence: First, linear probes trained on layer-wise hidden states reveal that RL models tend to achieve higher accuracy in predicting answer correctness compared to SFT models, indicating more linearly separable and structured representations. Second, mean ablation studies show that RL models develop a hierarchical architecture where deeper layers become progressively more critical, whereas SFT models distribute importance uniformly across layers. Together, these findings demonstrate that RL training fundamentally restructures how models represent and process reasoning problems. Finally, we analyze token-count variability under repeated sampling across problems to assess adaptive compute allocation. While we observe higher variability in some RL-tuned models than in their SFT counterparts, we see strong consistency in others, suggesting that token allocation may depend more on the overall training pipeline than on RL versus SFT alone. We believe this token-allocation variability reveals the spread of plausible on-policy reasoning, highlighting which models exhibit stable policies versus those that are under-determined, potentially non-identifiable solution behaviour.

arXiv:2607.26120v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments, where agents operate under asymmetric information and strategic deception due to conflicting or hidden objectives. In these settings, misalignment with collective goals becomes a central concern. We propose a novel framework for evaluating objective misalignment using the social deduction game Werewolf, modifying the objective of a single agent while preserving its assigned role. Across LLMs from four different model families and sizes, four player roles, and three objective formulations, we introduce a dual analysis of the agents’ internal reasoning and their public cheap-talk behavior (i.e costless, non-binding communication that does not directly affect the agents’ utilities), complemented by an analysis of game outcomes. Our results show that objective misalignment undermines outcomes in inherently adversarial environments, an effect exacerbated by asymmetric information and specialized roles. While compromised agents consistently develop distinct objective-dependent reasoning strategies, these adaptations remain largely invisible in their public behavior. More broadly, our findings suggest that even subtle objective misalignment can profoundly affect collective decision-making, highlighting the need for effective mitigation strategies for LLM-based multi-agent systems.

arXiv:2607.26155v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Clinical data-science agents must transform heterogeneous longitudinal records into auditable analyses, yet existing benchmarks largely isolate medical question answering, structured-table reasoning, or generic scientific repositories. We introduce CLINLENS, a benchmark of 200 executable tasks over five linked MIMIC resources spanning structured electronic health records, notes, electrocardiograms, chest radiographs, and echocardiograms. A 4 x 5 taxonomy crosses four patient-time scopes with five analysis capabilities. Program-first reverse synthesis pairs each bounded semi-raw package with an evaluator-private reference workflow and checks required artifacts, cohort and temporal semantics, and the final answer. On a fixed 126-task suite, the strongest of 24 standardized model-scaffold configurations achieves 56.3% scope-macro STRICTPASS despite 100% EXECSUCCESS. For reference, a separately configured coding agent solves 83 of 126 tasks, while five biomedical systems adapted to GPT-4o-mini reach at most 2.9% scope-macro STRICTPASS. These results expose a substantial gap between runnable submissions and correct clinical analyses.

arXiv:2607.26159v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: An AI benchmark result rarely reaches a consequential claim in one step. Evaluators generalize it to further cases, interpret it as evidence of capability, extrapolate it to new tasks, transport it to another system or site, and combine it with assumptions about human review and downstream consequences. Validity-centred approaches require evidence for each claim. This paper identifies a further epistemic problem: warranted links don’t automatically make a warranted chain. The target of one study may not be the source of the next; system, population, outcome, or conditions may change at the interface; and shared data or model lineage may make apparently independent support dependent. Projectibility concerns whether a bounded extension from observed to unobserved cases is warranted. Goodman supplies the problem of rival extensions; argument-based validity supplies an architecture for testing them. The paper’s distinctive claim is a non-composition principle: support for adjacent projections warrants their composition only when endpoints and assumptions align and dependence and uncertainty are carried through. A legal-research case shows how benchmark evidence and a deployment study can each be sound while remaining parallel. A reanalysis and simulation show why aggregate stability can erase distinctions a later projection requires. The resulting projectibility audit diagnoses unsupported joins in benchmark-to-use arguments.

arXiv:2607.26160v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encode diagnostic criteria, but LLM systems typically retrieve guideline text or absorb it through training rather than execute its rules. We introduce GuideSkill, an external reasoning layer that compiles disease-specific criteria into executable functions returning ordinal diagnostic-support scores. GuideSkill-Zero is initialized from guidelines, while GuideSkill-Evo uses case–diagnosis pairs to refine covered skills and add missing diagnoses. At inference, an LLM proposes a differential diagnosis, grounds the features required by each matched skill, and fuses its ranking with the executed skill scores. Across four benchmarks and four backbones, GuideSkill-Zero improves macro-average accuracy over guideline RAG by 13.45% on average. GuideSkill-Evo achieves the highest macro-average for every backbone, improves over direct inference by 18.49% relatively, and increases gold-label skill coverage from 56.5% to 99.5%. On Qwen3.5-9B, it also exceeds the strongest parameter-update baseline by 11.16% without updating the backbone. Expert evaluation further indicates that GuideSkill produces clinically sound and broadly acceptable skills, suggesting that its initialized and evolved rules are reliable and practically meaningful. These results support executable skills as a model-agnostic mechanism for combining guideline-derived procedures with case-derived diagnostic patterns.

How two API settings improved GPT-5.6 performance on ARC-AGI-3, boosting scores and efficiency by retaining reasoning and enabling compaction.