AI, three at a time · read · watch · listen

Tag

agent-evaluation

3 reads

arXiv 2026-10-20-2

Can Theoretical Physics Research Benefit from Language Agents?

The physics-agents paper names its promising uses (quantum error-correcting code search, Mathematica-verified constructions, proof checking), and each one has an external checker. The weak spots, taste and choice of approximation, have none, and the paper's two worked failures, reusing 'H' after a Jordan-Wigner transform and picking a path at random on a fork, are ambiguity errors. Rowspace shows the checker can be built by hand; this paper says where to build the next one.

arXiv 2026-10-17-2

Agentic Reward Modeling: Verifying GUI Agent via Progressive Trajectory-Grounded Interaction

VAGEN treats verification as an agent job: read the trajectory first, then probe state only where evidence is thin. On OSWorld-Verified with a Sonnet actor, the same model checks tasks at 83.1% success in 17.4 steps versus 55.9% in 28.5 steps when it does them, and it hits 94.6 F1 against ProRe's 90.4. That is the validator Rieseberg says ambition depends on, and it works because it can touch the environment. The Postgres delay is what a verifier this effective does to a release schedule.

YouTube (Corey Gallon, Rexmore) 2026-10-14-1

I Believe Everything My Agents Tell Me: Three Levels of Review — Corey Gallon, Rexmore

Gallon's agent produced a letter whose numbers were right to the cent and whose premise was wrong, which is exactly the failure reconciliation can't see. Only the role-based cold reviewers attacked the frame; the invoice check would have passed it. In about 4 in 10 analysed 2026 sessions an agent got something wrong that mattered, so self-reported completion plus a spot-check is no longer a defensible default, and verification effort will have to scale with stakes.