#01Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Direct Pass@$k$ Optimization for Thought Pruning: Balancing Quality and Diversity in Test-Time Reasoning
Mahdi Salmani, Adel Javanmard, Devansh Gupta and 1 more
Test-time scaling has emerged as a key inference strategy for reasoning models, where a model generates a large number of candidate solutions in the hope of finding at least one correct solution. Running all candidate solutions to completion can be computationally demanding, so recent work prunes the candidate pool after generating only a short prefix, committing further computation only to the surviving candidates. Existing pruning strategies divide broadly into two categories: Quality-based methods assign a score to each partial solution and discard those predicted to ultimately lead to an incorrect final solution, while diversity-based methods select partial solutions that follow different reasoning trajectories and are therefore likely to cover different final solutions. The tension between these two objectives is an instance of exploration versus exploitation, yet little to no prior work on pruning exposes this trade-off directly, let alone optimizes it. In this paper, we introduce a pruning procedure that addresses this trade-off directly by optimizing pass@$k$ over the selected solution pool. In particular, it chooses the pool to maximize the probability that at least one of its partial solutions, when continued to completion, yields a correct answer. Because this objective simultaneously rewards high-quality partial solutions and penalizes redundancy among them, quality and diversity are naturally balanced by the criterion itself rather than through separate ad-hoc design choices. On eight open-weight reasoning models, our method outperforms existing quality-based and diversity-based pruning strategies. The gains are particularly pronounced when the pruning procedure keeps a moderate number of partial solutions for continued generation, highlighting the value of directly balancing quality and diversity during pruning.
#02Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Who Is Sycophantic to Whom? Confident LLMs, Human Deference, and the Collapse of Trust Calibration
Deepthika S, Pawni Yadav, B. Sankar
Research on sycophancy asks whether large language models (LLMs) bend towards what their users want to hear. We ask the reverse question: when an LLM is confident, consistent, and wrong, do users bend towards it? In a within-subjects experiment, 32 participants learned up to five science topics by chatting with five assistants built on the same model (GPT-5-mini). Unknown to participants, each assistant's briefing had 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100% of its facts replaced by plausible falsehoods, and every assistant spoke with full confidence. A surprise quiz after each topic offered the correct fact, the planted falsehood, and two distractors, with a confidence rating for every answer. Across 104 quizzes and 1,040 answers, scores fell from 7.4 to 2.9 out of 10, and the planted option was chosen on 60% of falsified items against 11% of correctly taught ones (odds ratio 12.5). Transcript coding showed that whenever the assistant stated a falsehood, it was adopted about 65% of the time at every falsification level. Absorbed falsehoods were held with high confidence (8.4/10), the modeled confidence advantage of right over wrong answers vanished, and the discrimination of confidence for correctness fell from an AUROC of 0.70 to chance, while post-task trust ratings barely moved. Participants tended to return to the chat more when the assistant was worse, but returning went with more absorption, not less, and 30% of all turns pasted quiz questions back to the source being checked. The assistant itself was almost never sycophantic and never conceded under pushback. We introduce a baseline-corrected Human Deference Index to quantify this human-side sycophancy and argue that trustworthiness is a property of the human-AI pair, that sycophancy evaluations should measure both directions, and that learning interfaces must make reliability legible claim by claim.
#03Oct 22, 2026
cs.CL
Can an Agent Debug a Web Corpus? Agentic Auditing of Slovak FineWeb2
Marek Šuppa, Ivan Vykopal, Jaroslav Kopčan
Multilingual pipelines such as FineWeb2 apply one recipe across a thousand languages, leaving the failure modes of individual languages unanticipated. We use an LLM once, as a corpus debugger rather than a classifier: a tool-using agent explores the corpus through a read-only, budgeted API and compiles each finding into an executable test, which a native speaker then validates. On the 26.5M-document Slovak portion of FineWeb2, three runs costing \$2.21-\$2.84 each found seven findings over four phenomena. The largest is a machine-generated content farm of 1,408,437 documents (5.32%) that passed the pipeline's filters, 86.6% of it passing even stricter thresholds. Blinded labels support 6 of the 7 findings (defect rates .53-1.00 against .08 in a random control) and do not support one. The compiled suite scans the full corpus in 0.7 s of wall-clock time without a GPU, against \$12k-\$90k per LLM classification pass. The best static sampling baseline validates more selectors than any agent run, at under half the cost. The agent contributes exact prevalence, a precision estimate checked against sampled documents, an account of why the pipeline missed each slice, and a reusable test. We release the framework, Slovak test suite, validation data and agent trajectories.
#04Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Contestable Agents for Data Governance: Recording Human Stewardship of AI-Generated Metadata Across Structured and Unstructured Systems
Humza Akhtar, Brian Freeman
Industrial organizations hold operational knowledge in structured records, such as telemetry, point lists, and transactions, and in unstructured sources, such as manuals, service notes, communications, and inspection reports. Governance programs often manage these sources separately. Classifying, linking, and documenting them depends on a small group of employees with deep domain knowledge. Agents built on large language models can propose metadata, cite documents, and flag quality issues, but unreviewed proposals can spread errors into downstream systems. A perfunctory approval leaves no record of what a reviewer checked. We present contestable governance: specialist agents produce scored, cited arguments for disputed metadata decisions; a steward can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before commit; and a governance record retains the evidence, interventions, and outcome. A versioned domain glossary supplies model-specific terms and acronym definitions to the agents. We describe the workflow, a triage path that reserves full argumentation for uncertain proposals while preserving review before commit, the scoring and record models, and a gate that controls which verified decisions become precedent. Two HVAC use cases illustrate the pattern: point classification using Brick Schema class labels, supported by an open reference implementation, and an illustrative warranty failure-mode decision linking claim fields and telemetry to service notes and revisioned bulletins.
#05Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
FairFRESH: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Fair and Explainable Household Food Recommendation
Kodur Sai Vinay Sathvik, Kakoli Bora, Tejaswini R. M
Recommender systems typically serve one user at a time. However, in households, members share a finite pantry and follow different dietary rules, making independent recommendations prone to resource conflicts and dietary violations. We formulate household food recommendation as constrained fair division and present FairFRESH, a neuro-symbolic framework that learns per-member utilities, allocates foods under explicit welfare objectives, enforces dietary rules through a deterministic filter, and explains recommendations using Shapley and Banzhaf attributions. Theoretically, we show that no finite penalty guarantees compliance near a dietary-rule threshold, establish approximation guarantees for greedy allocation under utilitarian and smoothed Nash objectives in the stock-free model before filtering, and characterize the scale invariance of Nash welfare. We also use the minimax theorem to analyze rotating shared meals. On NHANES-derived data, the learned utility model achieves Recall@20 of 0.293, outperforming five learned recommenders (at most 0.244) but not a previous-day repetition heuristic (0.321). On held-out four-person households, Nash allocation reduces Gini disparity by 42% relative to conflict resolution while improving Recall@20 from 0.180 to 0.197. It comes within 2% of an upper bound on the smoothed Nash optimum, and rescaling one member's utilities changes at most 1.5% of assignments. All recommendations satisfy the encoded dietary rules, while attribution scores correlate with utility loss upon component removal (r = 0.76). In simulation, shared meals reduce pantry use by about one-third, and weekly rotation increases the worst-off member's utility by 38% over the best fixed meal.