LLM agents rely on long-term interaction histories to tailor their responses to individual users. However, historical personalization signals may become stale or misaligned with expectations implied by the current context, leading agents to follow outdated preferences during reasoning. We refer to this failure mode as personalization inertia, which shifts the agent’s behavior away from the user’s current intent. Existing methods mainly optimize final responses or memory retrieval, leaving such failures underexplored. In this paper, we propose Personalization Inertia VerificatiOn and RegulaTion (Pivot), a framework for mitigating personalization inertia in long-term interactions with agents. Concretely, we construct a trajectory-independent evidence condition as a diagnostic reference, model prefix-evidence consistency to assess compatibility with the current personalization evidence, and learn a rollback policy to determine whether and where to intervene. The selected intervention triggers local repair, preserving the reliable prefix while regenerating only the potentially inertia-affected suffix under evidence-guided constraints. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate consistent gains in personalization accuracy and trajectory faithfulness with targeted intervention overhead.

LLM-empowered paper-code discrepancy detection has received growing concern since the scaling of research submissions exceeds the manual review capability. However, the limited context capacity and one-sided discrepancy detection of existing single-agent LLM paradigms lead to an inferior recall performance in detecting discrepancies. In this paper, we propose **Dude**, the first **Du**al-**De**tection Multi-Agent System for paper-code discrepancy detection. We discover that the granularity asymmetry of the paper-language and code-language introduces over-interpretation and over-reporting challenges in a multi-agent system design for discrepancy detection, resulting in increasing false positives. To address this, we propose a granularity-aligned negotiation and a two-stage salience-filtering mechanism in Dude, which effectively prevents agents from falsely reporting discrepancies. Experimental results in real-world paper-code discrepancy datasets showcase Dude’s significant recall and precision improvement by up to **22.8%**, increasing F1 score by up to **18.7%** compared to baseline methods.

In large language model (LLM) agents, reasoning trajectories are treated as reliable internal beliefs for guiding actions and updating memory. However, coherent reasoning can still violate logical or evidential constraints, allowing unsupported beliefs repeatedly stored and propagated across decision steps, leading to systematic behavioral drift in long-horizon agentic systems. Most existing strategies rely on the consensus mechanism, conflating agreement with faithfulness. In this paper, inspired by the vulnerability of unfaithful intermediate reasoning trajectories, we propose Self-Audited Verified Reasoning (SAVeR), a novel framework that enforces verification over internal belief states within the agent before action commitment, achieving faithful reasoning. Concretely, we structurally generate persona-based diverse candidate beliefs for selection under a faithfulness-relevant structure space. To achieve reasoning faithfulness, we perform adversarial auditing to localize violations and repair through constraint-guided minimal interventions under verifiable acceptance criteria. Extensive experiments on six benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently improves reasoning faithfulness while preserving competitive end-task performance.