Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.14992

Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5

Justin Bronder
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Language-model systems increasingly read from stores they also write to, so a claim that was merely written earlier can return looking retrieved. We tested whether the message package carrying an unsupported assignment changes which answer a model gives in a synthetic lookup task. Claude Opus 5 selected a color code for a named item or abstained. In an exploratory four-arm study, false-code adoption was 0/24 with no target claim, 0/22 scorable trials when a prior assistant assertion named the target, 14/24 when a tool-result record named it, and 15/24 when that result used a ten-field metadata wrapper that marked it unchecked. The tool-result arm selected the record's code in 11/12 supported trials and 14/24 unsupported trials, ruling out a fixed output-token bias while leaving substantial planted-token heterogeneity. A document-preregistered replication reproduced the tool-result versus assistant-assertion gap, 7/24 against 0/24, one-sided Fisher exact p = 0.0047. The tool-result rate nevertheless fell from 14/24 to 7/24 across runs made four days apart. A second preregistered study gave the earlier comparison a live text control: both records were announced in advance and placed in the same final user turn, then target binding was swapped between the linked tool result and later inline JSON. Inline text was sufficient for false-code adoption in 60/60 trials; the tool-result condition produced 57/60, so the registered result-first superiority criterion failed, p = 1. The result does not show that tool results have no effect. It shows that native tool-result placement was not necessary and that this experiment did not find greater behavioral weight for the result package than for announced inline text. The findings concern a single model on one synthetic task template, accessed through one API.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Justin Bronder. 2026-08-15. Does a Tool Result Carry More Authority Than Plain Text? Three Prospective Studies of False-Claim Adoption in a Synthetic Assignment Task with Claude Opus 5. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14992

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗