#01Nov 4, 2026
cs.AI
CompressionBench: How can your coding agents compress LLMs?
Xinrui Zhong, Zhifeng Li, Zhiming Wang and 6 more
Recursive self-improvement requires AI systems to improve the models and infrastructure used by subsequent systems. LLM compression offers a concrete efficiency objective: retain a pretrained model's behavior within a smaller model storage budget. We study whether coding agents can carry out this step autonomously. We formulate compression as a terminal task in which an agent receives a source checkpoint, storage limit, inference environment, and time budget, then constructs compressed weights and executable inference code. The agent controls its algorithm and experiments; perplexity feedback guides search, and independent verification checks the final model. Across six agents and six model--size settings, 29 of 36 submissions pass verification. Selecting the lowest-perplexity agent design per task yields an average 3.4% perplexity increase over BF16 and 77.33% downstream accuracy, compared with 79.56% for BF16. Recorded experiments reveal how agents achieve these outcomes and where improvement breaks down. Agents lower PPL in 21 of 24 revisions at nearly fixed storage; complete-model feedback reverses 17 of 79 prior local rankings; and generation and inference tests expose failures that likelihood alone misses. The results identify representation design, experimental judgment, and capability validation as central to agent-driven model compression, a measurable component of efficiency-oriented self-improvement.
#02Nov 4, 2026
econ.EM
Regression with Many Generated Controls
Timothy Christensen, Daniel Vebman
We consider linear regression when some covariates are endogenous, a variable sufficient to control for endogeneity exists but is latent, and the practitioner can generate many proxies for the latent control. For instance, one could cheaply but imperfectly impute the latent control using different AI/ML methods, each generating a different proxy. There are several options the practitioner might consider in this scenario: including all proxies or factors computed from the proxies as controls, instrumental variables estimation, and some nonlinear variants thereof. We use a transparent model to derive the implicit estimand each approach targets, determine when these estimands recover the parameter of interest, and provide some practical recommendations. We show that with a sufficiently rich set of generated controls, practitioners can consistently estimate the parameter of interest without relying on validation data.
#03Nov 4, 2026
physics.flu-dyn
FlowReconBench: Accuracy, calibration and cost of learned and classical flow reconstruction from sparse sensors
Nicolas Tricard, Linzheng Wang, Jason Chen and 1 more
Reconstructing full flow fields from sparse sensors requires prior assumptions about unmeasured regions and physical variables. Yet it remains unclear when learned models outperform classical estimators and which aspects of their predictions can be trusted. FlowReconBench evaluates ten learned and five classical methods on three regimes: a laminar cylinder wake across Reynolds numbers, two-dimensional Kolmogorov turbulence and a large-scale three-dimensional (3D) isotropic turbulence. Methods share leakage-controlled splits and sensor draws and are scored on per-channel error, ensemble spread, calibration, spectra and cost. The leading method changes for each regime. Classical methods perform strongly in low-order and dense-sensing regimes. On the cylinder wake, linear stochastic estimation and gappy proper orthogonal decomposition lead, including for unobserved pressure. In 3D, inverse-distance weighting matches the best learned methods on observed channels. Data-driven methods become superior at decreasing sensor density or poor sensor observability. On Kolmogorov flow, continuous ranked probability score and error yield different method rankings: generative models offer broader but underdispersed ensembles, while deterministic models prioritize pointwise error. Generative models balance this tradeoff through their sampler budget, with a larger budget improving ensemble quality at higher computational cost. In 3D, scaling tests demonstrate that queryable methods are flat in memory, while full-grid construction methods run out of memory. Observing only 2 of 4 fields leaves the problem kinematically underconstrained, yet a latent model can reproduce structural similarities to the ground truth.
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.CL
Balancing hierarchical representation and quantization: A performance trade-off in text embeddings
Kai Ponel, Marco Polignano, Erasmo Purificato and 4 more
Hierarchical text embedding models offer variable-length representations, while quantization reduces numerical precision; both aim to improve computational efficiency. This work is an empirical benchmark study of how these two orthogonal, already-established techniques interact. We evaluate 38 tasks from the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) using four transformer-based embedding models, covering 1D and 2D hierarchical representations combined with 32-bit, 8-bit, and binary quantization, for 168 configurations per task. We report each efficiency dimension separately: theoretical per-vector storage and end-to-end evaluation time. Under a Friedman test with Nemenyi post-hoc analysis, int8 quantization is statistically indistinguishable from float32 for pair classification and re-ranking and costs at most 1.5 percentage points overall, whereas binary quantization is significantly worse across every task category. Halving the embedding dimension once is not statistically detectable above $m=16$; two successive halvings always are. Combining an 8x dimensionality reduction with int8 yields a 32x reduction in per-vector storage at 94.4% of baseline effectiveness. Because evaluation times were measured once, we treat them as indicative: we find no evidence that quantization speeds up evaluation, whereas sampling from intermediate layers shortens it substantially. Retrieval degrades far faster than every other category, so we report findings per task category.
#05Nov 4, 2026
cs.AI
Rules, Traces and Routing Statistics: Training and Calibration Data for Open Models on ARC-AGI-2
Nguyen Minh Thang, Trinh Thi Phuong
We study which training and calibration data help three open models solve ARC-AGI-2 tasks when the solver runs offline on four L4 GPUs for at most 12 hours. We compare data offline on public tasks and report 189 runs on the 120 hidden semi-private tasks. For the NVARC Qwen3-4B grid model, we built a corpus of 12,000 executable rules in a typed language and 95,993 tasks; a rule is admitted only if its behaviour on a fixed probe set differs from that of every admitted rule, and a task only if its pairs refute a shortlist of nearest competing rules and defeat 12 shortcut solvers. Continued fine-tuning on 1,920 real task records with revised four-GPU scheduling raised the semi-private score from 28.96 (mean of the released model) to 33.06 (mean of five runs, best 34.86); no checkpoint trained with synthetic tasks, even all 95,993 of them, improved on the real-task model. For the Qwen3.8-27B reasoning model, we fine-tuned on 1,036 of its own reasoning traces with correct final answers and compared sets that add traces of other models and synthetic tasks. With an inference procedure built around the model (a thinking cap enforced in the serving engine, a Python program checked on the demonstrations after each answer, a long first attempt per input), the score rose from 26.81 to 44.03, the level the ARC Prize Foundation measured for the base model without a time limit (42.36); most of the gain came from the inference procedure. For the Qwen3.8-Flash-Next mixture-of-experts model (125B parameters, 6B active), GPU memory limited concurrency. Pruning from 512 to 384 experts per layer by router-weighted activation saliency grew the key-value cache from 0.55M to 1.39M tokens; a 296-expert list adapted with ARC routing statistics, keeping experts for program tokens, plus an FP8 indexer cache, reached 1.96M. With a tool that checks programs, the model scored 56.67, our best result.