AI Research Papers

AI Agents & Reasoning7/9/2026

Out of Sight: Compression-Aware Content Protection against Agentic Crawlers

The rise of LLM-based agents with reasoning, summarization, and memory capabilities has created a new threat surface for online content that conventional defenses fail to address. Existing defenses like access controls can be circumvented by agents mimicking ordinary browsers, and injection-based defenses often degrade human readability. In this paper, we revisit the agent pipeline and identify context compression, which agents routinely invoke to fit context budgets, as a critical yet overlooked defense layer. We propose CAPE, a framework that protects high-value textual content by injecting invisible perturbations without changing its human-visible surface form, thereby inducing severe information loss during agent compression. CAPE extracts disruptive seed perturbations from an accessible surrogate compressor, then adapts them to query-only target compressors through prior-guided evolution and preference-calibrated candidate prioritization, achieving effective protection under a low query budget. Experiments on three content types and four compression settings show that CAPE improves information loss by up to 75.8% over the strongest baseline while keeping protected content visually indistinguishable from originals. CAPE also transfers to real-world settings, including the LangGraph agent workflow and GitHub Copilot, highlighting its generality and practical value. This paper aims to reveal context compression as a new defense layer, promoting content protection research in the agent era.

AI Agents & Reasoning7/9/2026

CausalDS: Benchmarking Causal Reasoning in Data-Science Agents

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use. Yet the relevant benchmark landscape largely divides into symbolic causal reasoning benchmarks without realistic data analysis or data analysis benchmarks without a principled causal data-generating structure. Furthermore, existing causal evaluation datasets are often restricted to curated examples from existing sources, with diversity coming from limited templatized variations rather than from systematic generation of novel synthetic causal structures. We introduce CausalDS, a benchmark for evaluating causal reasoning in agentic data-science workflows. Each benchmark instance is a scene consisting of a sampled structural causal model (SCM) with generated observational data and an accompanying synthetic natural-language story grounded in a realistic domain. We optionally ground the composition of the benchmark components in empirical distributions obtained from real-world datasets, thus retaining empirical structure while reducing the "causal parrot" risk through completely synthetic generation. From each scene, we then derive tasks spanning all three of Pearl's rungs, with typical data-science prediction tasks appearing as Rung 1. Most tasks include a data science coding component, where the model typically needs to use several tools to arrive at the final answer due to the frequent presence of imperfect observations, which are generated by an observation model. Additionally, recognizing when a question admits no warranted answer and abstaining is treated as a first-class scored outcome. The benchmark thus jointly evaluates symbolic causal reasoning, data science, uncertainty quantification, abstention, and tool use/coding.

AI Agents & Reasoning7/9/2026

MASTE: A Multi-Agent Pipeline for Zero-Shot Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction

Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) requires jointly identifying (aspect, opinion, sentiment) triples from a given review sentence. While large language models (LLMs) achieve strong zero-shot performance on many NLP benchmarks, their effectiveness on ASTE remains limited, as single-pass generation forces the model to determine span boundaries, opinion grouping, and sentiment polarity in a single decoding step. Common remedies, such as few-shot in-context learning and chain-of-thought prompting, offer only marginal improvements and rely heavily on either in-domain demonstrations sampled from labeled training data or carefully engineered reasoning prompts, neither of which is broadly available in zero-shot deployment. Inspired by the classical agent paradigm, we propose MASTE, a multi-agent pipeline for zero-shot Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction. MASTE decomposes ASTE into four sequential stages, where specialized agents handle different compositional subtasks with explicit conditioning on prior outputs. This design enables entirely training-free zero-shot ASTE and generalizes across different backbones and datasets. Extensive experiments on four ASTE benchmarks show that MASTE substantially outperforms zero-shot and chain-of-thought LLM baselines under the same backbone, narrowing the gap to fully supervised methods without using any labeled triplets. Code is available at https://github.com/Hankerlove/MASTE.

AI Agents & Reasoning7/9/2026

Persuasion Attacks Can Decrease Effectiveness of CoT Monitoring

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior. While effective in standard scenarios, recent work highlights that LLMs remain vulnerable to persuasion-based jailbreaks, where natural-language arguments override model constraints. We stress-test whether this vulnerability extends to monitoring LLMs: can an adversarial agent persuade its CoT monitor to approve proposed actions that violate the monitor's policy? We design an evaluation framework with 40 tasks and analyze thousands of agent-monitor interactions, where agents are instructed to argue for policy-violating proposals. We find that in such adversarial settings, monitor access to the agent's CoT reasoning increases rather than decreases approval of harmful actions on average by 9.5%, as the scratchpad provides an additional persuasion channel. To address this, we introduce a fact-checking monitoring framework. We find that a fact-checker and monitor pairing from different model families, for example a Claude 3.7 Sonnet monitor paired with a GPT-4.1 fact-checker, reduces approval of policy-violating actions by up to 45%, compared to only 6%, when using the same model for both fact-checking and monitoring roles. Our results demonstrate that CoT monitoring alone may be insufficient against adversarial persuasion, and that model-diverse fact-checking provides a robust mitigation.

AI Agents & Reasoning7/9/2026

When Thinking Hurts: Epistemic Signals in the Reasoning Chains of Visual Language Models

Uncertainty quantification for visual language models (VLMs) conventionally targets the answer token distribution. We provide the first three-family empirical characterisation of answer entropy behaviour in thinking-mode VLMs. Running four models on identical POPE adversarial samples, we find three qualitatively distinct patterns: Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking shows complete collapse (ans H AUROC = 0.492); GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking shows no collapse (0.716); and InternVL3-8B shows selective thinking (chains on only 50% of samples, ans H = 0.675 full / 0.602 thinking-only). Across all three thinking-mode models, thinking chain entropy outperforms answer entropy on the subset where chains are generated (0.647, 0.759, 0.608 vs. 0.492, 0.716, 0.602 respectively), suggesting chain signals are the more reliable predictor whenever chains are present. This holds strongly for Qwen and GLM, but with only marginal and statistically unreliable advantage for InternVL3 (n_FP = 17). A 300-sample VQAv2 pilot confirms chain entropy (0.680) outperforms answer entropy (0.595) on VQAv2 questions, with the gap largest for free-form answers (0.733 vs. 0.467). On harder reasoning tasks (HallusionBench) both Qwen models show moderate signal (approx. 0.64), consistent with incomplete pre-commitment on difficult questions. We additionally document structured abstention affecting 12-22% of queries with asymmetry toward absent-object queries, and a practical abstention gate raising accuracy from 71.0% to 93.8% at 62.7% coverage with no additional inference cost.