#01Nov 4, 2026
cs.CV
Same Layout, Different Count: What Number Words Do Past Ten in Text-to-Image Models
Liang Yue, Eric A. Vance
Ask SD3.5-Medium for twelve of an object and then, from the same starting noise, for twenty-five. The picture keeps its layout, but the count changes about as much as it would under a new random seed, and in no consistent direction. We study what number words do once a request passes about ten objects, in five open text-to-image models. Holding the object and the starting noise fixed, we change one thing at a time, and people who never see the request count 3,088 of the images. Every model follows the number for small crowds, but only up to a point, its reach: SD3.5-M and FLUX.1-dev stop following it soon after ten, while FLUX.2 [klein] and Qwen-Image follow it loosely up to twenty-five. Beyond SD3.5-M's reach, the coarse part of the starting noise fixes the composition of the picture but not how many objects it holds: redrawing only the noise finer than an eighth of the image keeps the layout as well as a new number does, and already moves the count two-thirds as far. The number word still reaches the denoiser and acts in its first steps, but nothing we tried gives it a clear direction. Shown instead as a noised grid in the starting latent, the count is drawn: people find it in 59% of images, against 4% when it is only told. Past ten, an exact-match score barely separates a model that follows the number loosely from one that ignores it, and a relative-error score can even prefer a constant guess of sixteen. A same-noise test with a few requests per object tells them apart.
#02Nov 4, 2026
cs.AI
On Turn-Level Best-of-N Sampling for Scaling LLM Agents
Jalaj Bhandari, Dhawal Gupta, Hongli Zhan and 5 more
In this work, we evaluate a simple inference-time scaling approach based on \textit{turn-level best-of-N sampling} (\method) for large language model (LLM) agents on complex, long-horizon tasks. We instantiate this using a \textit{generator-selector} framework with two LLMs; at each turn, a \emph{generator} model generates $N$ candidate actions and a \emph{selector} model selects one of them, which is then executed in the environment. This paper is closely related to the work of \cite{zainullina2025guided} who used critic models for guided search at inference time. Different from their work, we evaluate if off-the-shelf, open-weight LLMs can be effective at comparing different candidate actions directly. Experiments on long-horizon terminal tasks show that \method can lead to significant performance improvements, both in terms of accuracy (5--10\%) and consistency across repeated attempts. Analysis of agent trajectories reveal a shift in agent behaviour towards desirable patterns such as reduction in number of attempts to solve the task, improved task instruction following, debugging and testing.
#03Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Adaptive Multi Mode: Budget-Aware Routing of Optimizers By Online Landscape Probes
Benjamin Jacob Bodner
The best classical optimizer for a continuous black-box problem depends on its budget and landscape. Existing routers decide from the dimension and budget, past improvement or features fitted to one benchmark, and few test an optimizer's implicit assumptions online. AMM (Adaptive Multi Mode) routes a known budget among quasi-Newton, trust-region, coordinate, multistart and evolution-strategy optimization engines with online probes of curvature, plateaus, separability, kinks, basins and fractal structure. Each probe has a default, a dimension-by-budget validity range and a cost charged to the budget. In its pre-registered development loop on bbob, 32 of 36 predictions held over the last 16 confirmations. AMM was then tested once on held-out bbob instances 101-110 (D=2-40, 10*D-1000*D) against up to seven competitors. It has the highest target share in 382 of 600 function-dimension-budget cells (236 outright, 146 tied) and, by a descriptive posterior rule, is credibly behind in 35, mostly at 10*D and 30*D. At every budget it also leads the controls built from its own engines (the best engine alone, the best engine per dimension and budget, and a greedy schedule), narrowly at 10*D and 30*D, and nevergrad's NgIohTuned. In pre-registered runs its lead over IPOP-CMA-ES holds under affine and box transformations, on box-constrained bbob and, pooled, on rotated f2-f4, but rotating the separable f3 and f4 removes most of the lead there. On held-out MA-BBOB its final share at 2000*D is level with IPOP-CMA-ES's and its anytime area lower. We published AMM as an open-source Python package (pip install amm-optimizer; https://github.com/BjBodner/amm-optimizer).
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.AI
FrontierPhysics: Evaluating Agents for End-to-End Physics Research
Bingran You, Wenjun Ke, Ria Rosenauer and 69 more
AI agents are playing an increasingly important role in physics research. However, existing physics benchmarks only evaluate fixed questions, isolated sub-tasks, or paper reproduction with given solutions, and rarely check research quality alongside correctness. We introduce FrontierPhysics, an end-to-end benchmark with 56 tasks made by 42 physicists based on their own research, covering nine domains across theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Each task requires agents to review the literature, develop a research plan, conduct research and experiments, and produce structured outputs and scientific manuscripts. Combining deterministic verifiers with expert-authored rubrics, FrontierPhysics evaluates whether agents' research is correct and publishable. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, no configuration passes more than 46 of its 168 rollouts. Manual review of agent trajectories shows that frontier agents' main weaknesses are insufficiently rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than gaps in physics knowledge or execution errors.
#05Nov 4, 2026
cs.AI
ServerBench: How can your coding agents design specialized LLM serving systems?
Xinrui Zhong, Zhiming Wang, Yongqi Liu and 5 more
Large language model (LLM) coding agents develop software through experimentation, offering an opportunity to design the serving systems supporting their own operation. Effective serving requires coordinating implementation and operating decisions under session dependencies, latency constraints, and correctness requirements. We introduce ServerBench, a benchmark for agentic design of complete, specialized LLM serving systems. Agents experiment against a common objective, dollars per dollar: latency-qualified token value per dollar of GPU cost. Stateful replay preserves session dependencies, and independent verification checks the submitted system. Across 11 coding-agent models and three deployments, Claude Sonnet 5.5 achieves 2.97 dollars per dollar on Gemma E4B, $4.87\times$ the vLLM reference; 22 of 33 runs yield verified systems, and 13 exceed the strongest baseline. Our analysis identifies three findings: high-value designs coordinate capacity improvements with load selection; agents interpret performance feedback through workload-relevant experiments; and reliable delivery requires verification of the execution paths introduced by optimization. Overall, ServerBench supports systematic study of how agents translate service objectives and feedback into effective, verified serving systems for given task specifications.