Three New arXiv Papers Propose Frameworks to Address LLM Evaluation and Agent Limitations

Researchers publish papers on LLM agent epistemic asymmetry, Bayesian evaluation methods, and multi-agent response optimization.

Three New arXiv Papers Propose Frameworks to Address LLM Evaluation and Agent Limitations

Three recent papers on arXiv address challenges in large language model systems:

Epistemic Asymmetry in LLM Agents

According to arXiv paper 2512.20884v1, autonomous agents powered by LLMs and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) face what researchers term “epistemic asymmetry” - a limitation where agents remain “unidirectional” and function only as “proficient consumers of digital content.” The paper, titled “The Silent Scholar Problem,” presents a probabilistic framework intended to address this isolation, which the authors state “leads to redundant reasoning and stagnates” collective progress.

Bayesian LLM Evaluation Framework

A second paper (arXiv:2510.04265v2) challenges the widely-used Pass@k metric for reporting LLM reasoning performance. According to the authors, Pass@k “often yields unstable, misleading rankings, especially when the number of trials (samples) is limited and compute is constrained.” The researchers present a “principled Bayesian evaluation framework” as an alternative approach.

Multi-Agent Response Optimization

The third paper (arXiv:2512.00617v2) introduces ART (Adaptive Response Tuning Framework), addressing how “single-model responses often exhibit inconsistencies, hallucinations, and varying quality across different query” types. The framework employs a “multi-agent tournament-based approach” to optimize LLM responses.

All three papers are available on arXiv.

LLMevaluationagentsresearcharXiv