arXiv subjects

Aditya Nannapaneni

Publications and source records attributed to Aditya Nannapaneni.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do LLM Attribution Metrics Transfer? Auditing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Evaluation Across Datasets and Constructs

Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable. We audit eight automatic scorers -- lexical, embedding, and BERTScore baselines alongside entailment/grounding-trained models (clean and FEVER NLI, the checker MiniCheck) -- across three evaluation constructs (provenance/topicality, generated-answer attribution, and fact-check entailment), asking whether any scorer transfers: stays within the 95% confidence interval of the best audited scorer on every dataset of a multi-dataset construct. In the construct with the most multi-dataset human-labeled coverage -- generated-answer attribution (AttributionBench's four source datasets, n = 1,610, with independent HAGRID, n = 2,150) -- none of the audited automatic scorers does: the per-dataset metric rankings invert (Kendall tau = -0.64, p = 0.031 on AttributedQA vs. LFQA), and an off-the-shelf NLI scorer that is best on short-claim AttributedQA (AUROC 0.90) collapses to AUROC 0.53 (chance) on long-form LFQA, where BERTScore wins (0.91); the reversal persists under the tested truncation settings. This instability has a concrete decision cost: a naive "best-on-average" rule for choosing an evaluator fails leave-one-dataset-out (mean held-out regret 0.172 AUROC, worse than fixing one scorer), so metric choice should be validated on the target dataset rather than assumed from performance elsewhere. A prompt-based LLM judge avoids the chance-level collapses the automatic scorers suffer (no LFQA collapse) but is not uniformly best, ~100x costlier, and non-deterministic -- relocating, not removing, the validation burden.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Always-OnAgents:A Survey of Persistent Memory, State, and Governance in LLMAgents

Always-on agents are systems whose future behavior depends on durable state accumulated across earlier interactions. We treat them as persistent-state systems: the operative system includes retrievable memories, but also task ledgers, permissions, credentials, commitments, provenance and audit records, shared state, trigger conditions, and externally committed effects linked to those records. The survey reads the literature through six diagnostic axes for each state item, authority, scope, mutability, provenance, recoverability, and actionability, and through a lifecycle in which state is written, validated, organized, retrieved, acted upon, updated, forgotten, audited, and sometimes rolled back. Across a 435-work coded corpus, treated as a scoped map rather than an exhaustive census, the literature concentrates more heavily on accumulating and retrieving state than on governing, recovering, or relinquishing it. We therefore introduce the Always-On Evaluation Protocol (AOEP-v0), a pilot evaluation contract that makes these governance requirements concrete by scoring state mutation and recovery obligations rather than answer quality alone. The resulting agenda connects always-on agents to databases, distributed systems, formal methods, capability security, and machine unlearning.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review. End-to-end AI scientist systems can now produce paper-like manuscripts, but their claims are often harder to verify than their code is to run. This survey studies that gap in computational AI/ML research, where code, benchmarks, experiments, and write-ups are most visible. We screen 125 candidate works and include 35, with full-text coding of 26 entries: 24 runnable systems and two study or position papers. We code seven audit dimensions: lifecycle stage, autonomy level, evaluation method, released artifacts, human-in-the-loop points, novelty verification, and result-selection disclosure. The main pattern is that code release is now common, but reproducibility-grade and claim-verification artifacts remain much less common. In the 24 runnable systems, 83 percent release code, while 38 percent release seeds or execution traces and 38 percent report any novelty-verification method. Among nine closed-loop L4 systems, seven are mechanical reruns and one is author-claimed without an external check; no LLM-era system in the corpus demonstrates an externally validated in-loop oracle under our coding rule. We contribute a coded corpus, a lifecycle-by-autonomy map, an auditability-gap analysis, and a reviewer-facing reporting checklist. The survey argues that the field's central bottleneck is no longer only whether agents can complete research tasks, but whether reviewers can verify the claims those agents produce.

cs.CY↗