Yize Cheng

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents that must decide when to answer directly vs. when to invoke external tools. Prior work studying adaptive tool use has largely treated tool necessity as a model-agnostic property, annotated by human or LLM judge, and mostly cover cases where the answer is obvious (e.g., fetching the weather vs. paraphrasing text). However, tool necessity in the wild is more nuanced due to the divergence of capability boundaries across models: a problem solvable by a strong model on its own may still require tools for a weaker one. In this work, we introduce a model-adaptive definition of tool-necessity, grounded in each model’s empirical performance. Following this definition, we compare the necessity against observed tool-call behavior across four models on arithmetic and factual QA dataset, and find substantial mismatches of 26.5-54.0% and 30.8-41.8%, respectively. To diagnose the failure, we decompose tool use into two stages: an internal cognition stage that reflects whether a model believes a tool is necessary, and an execution stage that determines whether the model actually makes a tool-call action. By probing the LLM hidden states, we find that both signals are often linearly decodable, yet their probe directions become nearly orthogonal in the late-layer, last-token regime that drives the next-token action. By tracing the trajectory of samples in the two-stage process, we further discover that the majority of mismatch is concentrated in the cognition-to-action transition, not in cognition itself. These results reveal a knowing-doing gap in LLM tool-use: improving tool-use reliability requires not only better recognition of when tools are needed, but also better translation of that recognition into action.

Large language models increasingly expose reasoning traces, yet their underlying cognitive structure and steps remain difficult to identify and analyze beyond surface-level statistics. We adopt Schoenfeld’s Episode Theory as an inductive, intermediate-scale lens and introduce ThinkARM (Anatomy of Reasoning in Models), a scalable framework that explicitly abstracts reasoning traces into functional reasoning steps such as Analysis, Explore, Implement, Verify, etc. When applied to mathematical problem solving by diverse models, this abstraction reveals reproducible thinking dynamics and structural differences between reasoning and non-reasoning models, which are not apparent from token-level views. We further present two diagnostic case studies showing that exploration functions as a critical branching step associated with correctness, and that efficiency-oriented methods selectively suppress evaluative feedback steps rather than uniformly shortening responses. Together, our results demonstrate that episode-level representations make reasoning steps explicit, enabling systematic analysis of how reasoning is structured, stabilized, and altered in modern language models.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to interact with and execute tasks in dynamic environments. However, a critical yet overlooked limitation of these agents is that they, by default, assume a stationary context, failing to account for the real-world time elapsed between messages. We refer to this as "temporal blindness". This limitation hinders decisions about when to invoke tools, leading agents to either over-rely on stale context and skip needed tool calls, or under-rely on it and redundantly repeat tool calls. To study this challenge, we constructed TicToc, a diverse dataset of multi-turn user-agent message trajectories across 76 scenarios, spanning dynamic environments with high, medium, and low time sensitivity. We collected human preferences between "calling a tool" and "directly answering" on each sample, and evaluated how well LLM tool-calling decisions align with human preferences under varying amounts of elapsed time. Our analysis reveals that existing models display poor alignment with human temporal perception, with no model achieving a normalized alignment rate better than 65% when given time stamp information. We also show that naive, prompt-based alignment techniques have limited effectiveness for most models, but specific post-training alignment can be a viable way to align multi-turn LLM tool use with human temporal perception. Our data and findings provide a first step toward understanding and mitigating temporal blindness, offering insights to foster the development of more time-aware and human-aligned agents.

The increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their misuse in AI-generated plagiarism and social engineering. While various AI-generated text detectors have been proposed to mitigate these risks, many remain vulnerable to simple evasion techniques such as paraphrasing. However, recent detectors have shown greater robustness against such basic attacks. In this work, we introduce Adversarial Paraphrasing, a training-free attack framework that universally humanizes any AI-generated text to evade detection more effectively. Our approach leverages an off-the-shelf instruction-following LLM to paraphrase AI-generated content under the guidance of an AI text detector, producing adversarial examples that are specifically optimized to bypass detection. Extensive experiments show that our attack is both broadly effective and highly transferable across several detection systems. For instance, compared to simple paraphrasing attack–which, ironically, increases the true positive at 1% false positive (T@1%F) by 8.57% on RADAR and 15.03% on Fast-DetectGPT–adversarial paraphrasing, guided by OpenAI-RoBERTa-Large, reduces T@1%F by 64.49% on RADAR and a striking 98.96% on Fast-DetectGPT. Across a diverse set of detectors–including neural network-based, watermark-based, and zero-shot approaches–our attack achieves an average T@1%F reduction of 87.88% under the guidance of OpenAI-RoBERTa-Large. We also analyze the tradeoff between text quality and attack success to find that our method can significantly reduce detection rates, with mostly a slight degradation in text quality. Our adversarial setup highlights the need for more robust and resilient detection strategies in the light of increasingly sophisticated evasion techniques.

Open benchmarks are essential for evaluating and advancing large language models, offering reproducibility and transparency. However, their accessibility makes them likely targets of test set contamination. In this work, we introduce DyePack, a framework that leverages backdoor attacks to identify models that used benchmark test sets during training, without requiring access to the loss, logits, or any internal details of the model. Like how banks mix dye packs with their money to mark robbers, DyePack mixes backdoor samples with the test data to flag models that trained on it. We propose a principled design incorporating multiple backdoors with stochastic targets, enabling exact false positive rate (FPR) computation when flagging every model. This provably prevents false accusations while providing strong evidence for every detected case of contamination. We evaluate DyePack on five models across three datasets, covering both multiple-choice and open-ended generation tasks. For multiple-choice questions, it successfully detects all contaminated models with guaranteed FPRs as low as 0.000073% on MMLU-Pro and 0.000017% on Big-Bench-Hard using eight backdoors. For open-ended generation tasks, it generalizes well and identifies all contaminated models on Alpaca with a guaranteed false positive rate of just 0.127% using six backdoors.

Large language models (LLMs) can now access a wide range of external tools, thanks to the Model Context Protocol (MCP). This greatly expands their abilities as various agents. However, LLMs rely entirely on the text descriptions of tools to decide which ones to use—a process that is surprisingly fragile. In this work, we expose a vulnerability in prevalent tool/function-calling protocols by investigating a series of edits to tool descriptions, some of which can drastically increase a tool’s usage from LLMs when competing with alternatives. Through controlled experiments, we show that tools with properly edited descriptions receive over 10 times more usage from GPT-4.1 and Qwen2.5-7B than tools with original descriptions. We further evaluate how various edits to tool descriptions perform when competing directly with one another and how these trends generalize or differ across a broader set of 17 different models. These phenomena, while giving developers a powerful way to promote their tools, underscore the need for a more reliable foundation for agentic LLMs to select and utilize tools and resources. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/kazemf78/llm-unreliable-tool-preferences.