Daily Papers

Navigating high-stakes dilemmas involving conflicting values is challenging even for humans, let alone for AI. Yet prior work in evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in such situations has been limited to everyday scenarios. To close this gap, this work first introduces CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes), a meticulously curated dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values. In particular, we design CLASH in a way to support the study of critical aspects of value-based decision-making processes which are missing from prior work, including understanding decision ambivalence and psychological discomfort as well as capturing the temporal shifts of values in characters' perspectives. By benchmarking 10 open and closed frontier models, we uncover several key findings. (1) Even the strongest models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-Sonnet, achieve less than 50% accuracy in identifying situations where the decision should be ambivalent, while they perform significantly better in clear-cut scenarios. (2) While LLMs reasonably predict psychological discomfort as marked by human, they inadequately comprehend perspectives involving value shifts, indicating a need for LLMs to reason over complex values. (3) Our experiments also reveal a significant correlation between LLMs' value preferences and their steerability towards a given value. (4) Finally, LLMs exhibit greater steerability when engaged in value reasoning from a third-party perspective, compared to a first-person setup, though certain value pairs benefit uniquely from the first-person framing.

As agent systems become more widely used, multiple agent sessions increasingly run alongside pre-existing user tasks in the same environment, sharing resources with limited capacity or mutually exclusive states. This creates a safety risk: when granted sufficient privileges, an agent may resolve a resource conflict by terminating or otherwise disrupting an existing task rather than reporting it. In this work, we identify and formalize this failure mode, which we term destructive resource preemption: obtaining the resources required for a requested task by terminating, overwriting, evicting, or degrading an incumbent task. To systematically study this risk, we introduce ClashBench, an executable benchmark comprising 268 validated conflict cases across 55 resource types, and evaluate 17 models through Codex, Claude Code, and OpenCode. We observe destructive preemption in 44.5% of trajectories, where the agent completes the requested task while causing the incumbent task to fail its health check. We also show that prompt-based safeguards are insufficient: an instruction to avoid affecting existing tasks reduces but does not eliminate preemption, while an instruction explicitly authorizing the agent to stop local processes increases it. More concerningly, in 31.9% of successful destructive-preemption cases, the final response mentions neither the resource conflict nor the action taken to resolve it, raising concerns about possible concealment. These findings establish destructive resource preemption as a broad safety risk in privileged agent systems and motivate stronger privilege controls, task isolation, and conflict-aware safeguards.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems to automate complex computer-use workflows, yet existing benchmarks mostly assume consistent, cooperative environments. In contrast, real-world collaboration rarely runs on consistent information: peer or sub-agents frequently report outdated states, issue contradictory instructions, or compete over shared permissions and files, forcing agents to check others' outputs and verify ground truth in the environment. Evaluating such conflict resolution remains challenging: manual authoring cannot scale across complex systems, while unconstrained LLM generation produces narrative drift, answer leakage, and unsatisfiable rubrics. We introduce CLASHarness (Conflict-Loaded Agent Scenario Harness), a controllable framework for generating verifiable multi-agent conflicts in computer use, with a benchmark of 600 multi-round tasks. By combining hierarchical scenario planning with an eight-step verified micro-pipeline, CLASHarness pre-commits decisive visual facts before rendering and compiles hybrid code and semantic graders directly from executed reference trajectories, guaranteeing every task is solvable by construction. Evaluating 15 frontier models on CLASHarness reveals three core bottlenecks. First, when sub-agent outputs conflict with the environment, weaker models blindly follow misleading information, whereas stronger models inspect visual evidence to verify ground truth. Second, resolving conflicts is much harder than finding them: while agents can spot inconsistencies, actively fixing system state drops task success significantly. Third, coordination protocols remain a universal bottleneck: even frontier models fail over 58% of closing actions, often forgetting to release shared locks or hand off tasks. CLASHarness provides a scalable, verifiable foundation for building reliable multi-agent systems.

Agent Skills are instruction files that tell a coding agent how to do one job. Users install skills from many authors, so two skills for the same job can be active at the same time. We ask what a model does when both skill files are in its context: does it combine their compatible rules, or follow one skill and drop the other? We build SkillClash, 16 pairs of same-job skills in which code checks every rule and a reference output shows the best result that can be reached. On seven models from five families, from 4B open models to Qwen3-235B and GPT-4.1, a skill's rules are followed 93 to 99% of the time when it is loaded alone and 61 to 62% when a same-job skill is loaded next to it. Most outputs show takeover: every rule that only one skill asks for is followed, and every rule that only the other skill asks for is dropped. The worked examples inside the skills drive this. When each skill file instead ends with one example that follows both skills, takeover falls to 1 to 15% on the six models we tested. Telling the model which skill has priority does not bring the dropped skill back, and telling it to apply both skills brings the dropped skill back only on the two strong models and leaves the interacting rules broken. One merged skill file written by the strongest model we used, Claude Opus 5.5, lets all seven models follow 96 to 99% of the achievable rules. Most of its gain over a plain list of both skills' rules comes from its one worked example, and such an example helps only when it is correct. Code and data: https://github.com/prazmara/skillclash

By providing external information to large language models (LLMs), tool augmentation (including retrieval augmentation) has emerged as a promising solution for addressing the limitations of LLMs' static parametric memory. However, how receptive are LLMs to such external evidence, especially when the evidence conflicts with their parametric memory? We present the first comprehensive and controlled investigation into the behavior of LLMs when encountering knowledge conflicts. We propose a systematic framework to elicit high-quality parametric memory from LLMs and construct the corresponding counter-memory, which enables us to conduct a series of controlled experiments. Our investigation reveals seemingly contradicting behaviors of LLMs. On the one hand, different from prior wisdom, we find that LLMs can be highly receptive to external evidence even when that conflicts with their parametric memory, given that the external evidence is coherent and convincing. On the other hand, LLMs also demonstrate a strong confirmation bias when the external evidence contains some information that is consistent with their parametric memory, despite being presented with conflicting evidence at the same time. These results pose important implications that are worth careful consideration for the further development and deployment of tool- and retrieval-augmented LLMs.