Search arXiv⌕ 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

Explore connections, maps & timelines

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

STRUCTUREDAGENT: Planning with AND/OR Trees for Long-Horizon Web Tasks

Existing LLM-based web agents struggle on complex, long-horizon tasks due to limited in-context memory, weak planning abilities, and greedy behaviors that lead to premature termination. To address these challenges, we propose \SA{}, a hierarchical planning framework that interleaves planning and execution via dynamic $\ANDOR$ trees. The framework separates structural planning from LLM-based reasoning, enabling principled error recovery through node repair, systematic exploration of alternatives via OR nodes, and modular plans that can facilitate human intervention. On WebArena (630 tasks), \SA{} achieves a $\sim$53\% success rate vs.\ $\sim$46\% for AgentOccam, and on complex multi-constraint Amazon shopping tasks, gains reach 10\% over the strongest baseline.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce *Curation-Bench*, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent *execution-research gap*: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together

Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.

cs.AI↗