An Internal Alert in an Environment the Agent Misrepresents

Authors

  • Dylan Bailey Author
  • Evan Graham Author
  • Raymond Bryant Author

Abstract

A sharpness signal can correlate with response errors while an exploring agent fails through an inadequate world model. Evaluation should separately check alert calibration and grounded transitions. The benefit of acting on the alert requires an intervention test. Static correlation with errors cannot demonstrate that mitigation repairs the environment representation or improves interactive decisions. This focused synthesis develops an empirical comparison that preserves the terminal action, observation process, and total verification cost. Its proposed tests are prospective; no new simulation run, model-training result, or intervention effect is reported.

References

  1. S. Chen, T. Zhu, Z. Wang, J. Zhang, K. Wang, R. Zhou, S. Gao, T. Xiao, Y. W. Teh, J. He, and M. Li, “Why Do LLM Agents Fail in Exploring New Environments? A World-Modeling Perspective,” Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2026.
  2. S. Chen, M. Xiong, J. Liu, Z. Wu, T. Xiao, S. Gao, and J. He, “In-Context Sharpness as Alerts: An Inner Representation Perspective for Hallucination Mitigation,” Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
  3. Zhou, Yongxi, Junwei Yao, Yuanzhe Liu, Zihan Dong, Wenbo Ye, Jiaxi Wen, and Lai Yun Choi. “Single Canonical Prompts Underestimate LLM Safety's Surface-Form Sensitivity.” arXiv, 2026, arXiv:2608.02665. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02665.
  4. Sang, Yinghao. “AutoCrit: A Meta-Reasoning Framework for Self-Critique and Iterative Error Correction in LLM Chains-of-Thought.” 2025 6th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application (ICMLCA), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1177-1180. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmlca66850.2025.11336788.
  5. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  6. Hu, Edward J., et al. “LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models.” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. https://openreview.net/forum?id=nZeVKeeFYf9.
  7. Guo, Chuan, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks.” Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, vol. 70, 2017, pp. 1321–1330. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/guo17a.html.
  8. Sutton, Richard S., and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. 2nd ed., MIT Press, 2018. http://incompleteideas.net/book/the-book-2nd.html.
  9. Levine, Sergey, Aviral Kumar, George Tucker, and Justin Fu. “Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems.” arXiv, 2020, arXiv:2005.01643. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01643.
  10. Kumar, Aviral, Aurick Zhou, George Tucker, and Sergey Levine. “Conservative Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 1179–1191. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04779.
  11. Lewis, Patrick, et al. “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9459–9474. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401.
  12. Geifman, Yonatan, and Ran El-Yaniv. “Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08500.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-21

Versions

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 10 (2025): October 2025

Section

Articles