#01Oct 23, 2026
cs.AI
From Deliberately Constructed Systemic Representations of the World of Activity to Dialogue: A Five-Level Communication Architecture for Strong Language-Based ASI
Maxim Osovsky
This paper proposes a five-level organization of message formation and understanding within thinking and activity in which ASI participates. Its central thesis is that a language model's context is fundamentally incapable of presenting the foundations of utterance formation for examination and verification. These foundations are established in advance by acquired schemas, systemic representations of the world of activity, and connections accepted as true within them. Neither context nor trained LLM weights, in themselves, attest to the presence of deliberately constructed systemic representations. The five levels distinguish systemic representations of the world of activity, a particular situation cut out from those representations, its narrative description, the full sense of a message, and text. A situation's schema-model is not identical to a story about it. A recipient reconstructs the full sense from an abbreviated text through jointly constructed and agreed-upon representations and joint activity. Reverse work proceeds from the full sense through an extended description and the situation's schema-model to the reconstruction of systemic foundations. The theoretical foundations draw on the systems methodology of G. P. Shchedrovitskiy, the structural differential of A. Korzybski, and the Meaning-Text theory of I. A. Mel'chuk. The contribution is a specific systemic-activity organization of content for examining and adjusting message foundations and controlling the consequences of their transformation. Further research concerns large graphical models of activity on reconstructible systemic foundations, distinct from text generation from context.
#02Oct 23, 2026
cs.SE
Green Code or Costly Code? Evaluating the Energy Costs of Iterative LLM-Based Code Optimizations
Sadra Emami, Benjamin Weigell, Mohammad Reza Mousavi and 3 more
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to optimize code for performance. This practice often assumes that improvements in execution speed naturally translate into overall lower energy consumption. We challenge this assumption empirically by measuring whether performance-optimized code produced by LLM self-refinement pipelines is also energy-efficient relative to canonical human reference solutions, and whether the energy cost of the optimization process can be offset by subsequent execution-time savings. We evaluate 11 open-source models across four decoding configurations on all 1,000 problems of EffiBench, a state-of-the-art performance benchmark, while collecting per-process, hardware-level energy measurements throughout. Inference energy spans 0.79 to 8.68 MJ across model-variant pairs, which is roughly equivalent to the energy of 250 to 2800 GPT-4.1 queries. Limiting the maximum number of output tokens has the largest impact, reducing energy use by up to 69% compared to the default configuration. On the execution side, 42 of 44 configurations produce code that consumes more energy per problem than the canonical human reference, with overheads ranging from +4% to +886%. The two exceptions achieve only marginal gains, with break-even points on the order of 10^6 to 10^7 executions. Mixture-of-Experts architectures consume substantially less inference energy than equivalently-sized dense models without sacrificing correctness, making architectural choice a more consequential sustainability lever than decoding parameters. Performance optimization and energy efficiency are not always aligned goals: LLM self-refinement consistently produces faster-seeking but energy-heavier code relative to what a human engineer would write. All artifacts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23598170.
#03Oct 23, 2026
cs.CL
Measure Before You Train: Typed Decision Models vs. a Classical Baseline vs. a Generative LLM for Routing a Personal Multilingual Inbox
Federico Lucca
Personal email agents decide, for every message, what it is, whether it is urgent, whether to draft a reply, create a task, or ignore it. Their error rate is rarely measured: the stored labels were written by the system itself. We present Foyer, a self-hosted personal inbox agent in daily use, and a measurement protocol (stratified sampling, frozen snapshots, thread-grouped splits, pre-registered hypotheses, human labels in the agent's review loop) that yields ground truth before any training. On 739 real Italian/English emails labelled by the owner (231 unbiased, 500 adversarially sampled), we compare nine systems under thread-grouped cross-validation: the production keyword rules, a TF-IDF + logistic-regression baseline, local typed decision models (Tev1, Nimble), a hosted decision model (Nimble v4-max), and hosted generative LLMs (Qwen2.5-7B, Gemma 4 26B/31B). Four results. The production rules score 28% on message type against a 58% majority class: the field shown most prominently carried no information. With ~200 labels, logistic regression has the highest accuracy on every field (type 0.79, urgency 0.74, needs-reply 0.83, is-noise 0.90), though it never predicts the two rarest classes and is statistically tied with Gemma 4 on type; few-shot prompting does not close the gap. The sender's relationship (client, supplier, service) is recovered from other emails of the same contact with 98.6% accuracy where the contact has been seen, and is not inferable from a single message by any model: it belongs in the contact graph, not the prompt. Finally, accuracy is not the product metric: composed into actions, the most accurate system most often ignores emails needing action (18% vs 4% for the best LLM); a cost-chosen threshold on its noise probability halves that rate and makes it the cheapest system.
#04Oct 23, 2026
cs.AI
HarnessMM: Recursive Self-Improvement for Harness Token Efficiency
Yuhua Jiang, Chang Xu, Feifei Gao and 1 more
Agent harnesses repeatedly invoke reasoning after tool feedback, even when an earlier call has already fixed the next action. We introduce HarnessMM (Harness Minus Minus), a method for improving harness token efficiency through guarded decision reuse and recursive self-improvement (RSI). RSI iteratively refines companion harness configurations from training feedback, with validation selecting the configuration for deployment. A controller at the model-tool boundary reuses resolved decisions to replace later reasoning callbacks while actor weights remain fixed. Executable Decision Graphs store exact actions, literal arguments, causal dependencies, and public guards. Guarded Decision Reuse activates these persistent decisions from observed receipts; Certified Callback Substitution executes them through the native interface and records removal of the registered slow callback. New semantic decisions, unsupported evidence, and selector abstention invoke the original actor again. The representation restricts what feedback may change, while complete-task measurements establish quality and cost. On HumanEval, HarnessMM preserves Codex success at 90.82\% while reducing Tokens/task (k) from 66.72 to 47.02 (29.54\% saving). For DeepSeek Harness, success rises from 71.43\% to 85.71\% while Tokens/task (k) fall from 96.28 to 11.62 (87.93\% saving). A separate MBPP ablation measures 26.91\% lower cost than single-use graphs and 19.52\% lower cost than retained callbacks. These results establish guarded decision reuse as a practical way to reduce repeated reasoning in existing harnesses.
#05Oct 23, 2026
cs.CY
AI Alignment for Digital Democracy: Fairer Voters Representation against LLM Biases
Yi Qi, Srijoni Majumdar, Evangelos Pournaras
AI representation is emerging in digital democracy, assisting in voter emulation and decision-making. Large language models (LLMs) behave differently depending on the model, the prompt context, and the voter information they receive, representing some groups more accurately than others and potentially making the emulation unfair to certain groups. We investigate demographic biases in LLM-emulated electorates: how accurately LLMs represent individual votes, whether some voter groups are represented more accurately than others, and whether AI alignment can reduce these disparities without sacrificing overall accuracy. Using three U.S. presidential elections, we compare a closed-source and an open-source LLM across voters' demographic features and test AI alignment strategies toward fairer voter representation. Removing gender from the voter profile reduces the largest group error of the models by 22-42%, and removing education reduces it by 64%, whereas removing self-reported race increases the mean group error by over 40%, all without lowering accuracy. Common alignment strategies, such as repeated queries or fairness instructions, do not reduce these errors and can double them.