Autonomous AI Agents Systematically Diverge From Human Preferences in Proof Formalization
arXiv:2611.06995v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have ushered in a new age of proof abundance, but helping humans understand these proofs requires new attention to the differences in how AI agents and humans pursue a proof-making task. We present "simulated collaboration", a methodology that allows us to examine two key questions: (1) the relative attention AI agents pay to surface syntax or, conversely, deeper underlying semantics, and (2) how and where AI ag
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.06995. Source account: arXiv:2611.06995v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have ushered in a new age of proof abundance, but helping humans understand these proofs requires new attention to the differences in how AI agents and humans pursue a proof-making task. We present "simulated collaboration", a methodology that allows us to examine two key questions: (1) the relative attention AI agents pay to surface syntax or, conversely, deeper underlying semantics, and (2) how and where AI ag
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Who Should Know What? Empirical Information Design for Multi-Agent LLM Economies” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “Don't Prompt Your Agents. Equip Them: Skillware as a Modular Standard for Sovereign, Auditable, and Deterministic Capability Execution for Logical Sys” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.