#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Adversarial Training with Large Step Sizes: Implicit Bias, Optimization, and Sharpness
Yi Feng, Andrea Paudice
Adversarial Training (AT) is an important method for improving model robustness. We study the dynamics of deterministic Gradient Descent (GD) in AT. Most existing works in this direction focus on the small or vanishing step sizes regime, where GD resembles a continuous-time flow. However, such step sizes can make training inefficient and are rarely used in practice. In this paper, we study the AT dynamics of GD with large constant step sizes. We first study GD in adversarial linear logistic regression, focusing on two aspects: where the model parameters converge (implicit bias) and how quickly the losses decrease (optimization). We then turn to neural networks training and study how the sharpness of losses evolve during AT. Our results advance the understanding of the behaviors of GD with large step sizes in AT and highlight three key differences from its behavior in Standard Training (ST): (i) the implicit bias gap between AT and ST, previously established only for small step sizes, persists for arbitrarily large constant step sizes, (ii) different from ST, there is no uniform rate of convergence for the optimization error in AT, and (iii) sharpness can exhibit two-stage dynamics that differ from the Edge-of-Stability behavior observed in ST.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
Benchmarks as Software: Terminal-Bench and the Case for Continuous Benchmarks
E. Kelly Buchanan, Crystal Zhou, Scott W. Linderman and 1 more
Coding agents are among the most economically consequential deployments of LLMs to date, making reliable evaluation increasingly important. Yet even benchmarks that are carefully validated at release can become stale. As models improve, they can discover valid solutions that existing verifiers reject, while changes to evaluation infrastructure can invalidate assumptions embedded in tasks and tests. We call the resulting accumulation of defects benchmark maintenance debt: a growing gap between benchmark scores and the capabilities they are intended to measure. We introduce a continuous-validation workflow for agentic benchmarks that combines community reports, task artifacts, agent traces, automated oracle checks, and human-gated repairs. We apply this workflow to Terminal-Bench 2.0, a benchmark that underwent extensive human and LM-assisted review and red-teaming before release. Our audit identifies issues in roughly 30% of the benchmark, and we release the resulting repairs as Terminal-Bench 2.1. These repairs change evaluation results: accuracy increased by over 10 percentage points and leaderboard positions move by up to three ranks, even as the overall ranking remains highly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.958). We evaluate how resource allocation shapes benchmark conclusions. We show that fixed wall-clock can materially change agent performance: For example, extending the time limit closes a 20pp harness gap on GPT 5.4 and shrinks a 30 pp gap on GPT 5.4 mini to 5 pp. Benchmark maintenance is therefore not only about repairing task artifacts: resource budgets are part of the measurement specification and must be validated alongside the tasks themselves. More broadly, benchmark maintenance debt is not just accumulated implementation bugs: our results show that as models improve, both evaluation assumptions and resource settings may need to be revalidated.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.RO
T3R: Training-Free Two-Stage Token Refinement Towards Efficient and Robust VLA Models
Mohammed Hassan, Zhenyang Chen, Zheng Wang and 5 more
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models enable end-to-end robot control, but inference is increasingly expensive. Each decision processes hundreds of visual tokens, often across multiple cameras, leading to substantial computation while allowing irrelevant background content to distract action prediction under distribution shift. We argue that these issues stem from two complementary forms of redundancy: many visual tokens are spatially irrelevant, while attention over the remaining tokens is often misallocated. Based on this observation, we propose T3R, a Training-Free Two-Stage Token Refinement framework. In the first stage, segmentation-guided token pruning removes irrelevant visual patches to reduce computation and eliminate distracting context. In the second stage, saliency-guided attention biasing reallocates attention toward action-critical visual regions and language instructions within the retained tokens. Together, pruning produces a cleaner candidate set, while attention biasing further emphasizes the most decision-relevant evidence, yielding a better accuracy-efficiency frontier than either stage alone. On LIBERO-Spatial, T3R removes 85% of scene-camera visual tokens while essentially matching the unpruned success rate, and improves success by up to 7 percentage points under out-of-distribution object-placement perturbations. The timing comparison attributes 7.8 ms per inference call to pruning and attention-bias application. As input resolution increases, LLM-forward profiling shows up to a 3.3x speedup over the unpruned baseline. Evaluations across LIBERO, SIMPLER, and RoboTwin with three VLA backbones show the strongest accuracy-efficiency benefits in multi-camera settings. These results demonstrate that training-free token refinement is a practical approach to efficient and robust VLA inference.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
ReproBridge: Building Reproducibility into ML Research Artifacts
Yubo Wang, Rui Meng, Jaehyun Nam and 2 more
Reproducing machine learning experiments requires reconstructing procedures from information scattered across papers, released code, and supporting artifacts. For coding agents, reproduction success can therefore depend on their ability to fill in missing details, rather than on the released artifacts alone. We ask whether preserving recovered procedures and decisions improves subsequent independent reproduction. We define a standardized artifact design comprising a refined codebase, environment setup, experiment launchers, and a reproduction guide, and introduce ReproBridge, an agent workflow for constructing these refined reproducible artifacts. ReproBridge-Bench provides 1,029 tasks from 387 experiments across 36 papers, anchored by five human-verified reference scores per task. Agents attempt tasks in fresh sessions with raw code or refined artifacts; a separate Auditor checks execution evidence. Across four evaluated models, refined artifacts raise mean reproduction success from 76.4% to 92.6% and reduce downstream API spending by 19.7% on average. The cross-model success-rate spread narrows from 21.6 to 3.9 percentage points, with all four models achieving mean success rates above 90%. Removing any component reduces success in the ablation study, with the largest losses from code and environment removal. These results suggest that preserving execution knowledge helps even models with lower raw-code success reproduce experiments more reliably and at lower API cost.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
The Gold Rush in AI4Math, II: What are signatures of AI-assisted Proofs?
Yuanchuan Guo, Jiashun Jin, Zheng Tracy Ke and 1 more
The growing use of AI in mathematics raises a question: can we detect AI involvement in proofs, separately from AI assistance with writing? Historical arXiv papers, recent papers disclosing substantive AI use, and manuscripts released by OpenAI provide a rich empirical basis for studying this question. However, several challenges remain: lack of matched case-control pairs; potential incompleteness of disclosure; and lack of ready-to-use features designed to capture signals of AI involvement in proofs. To address these challenges, we construct five cohorts comprising 8,281 papers by combining existing manuscripts with those we produced using generative AI. These cohorts span different levels of AI involvement and include matched pairs of papers addressing the same research problems. We then introduce ProofTrace, a framework that represents each paper as a graph of immediate proof support (GIPS) and extracts interpretable features of mathematical organization. Our study yields three discoveries. First, principal-component projections of our features reveal a qualitative gradient of AI involvement, where AI-reworded papers remain close to human papers, the two AI-generated cohorts depart in broadly shared directions, and papers disclosing substantive AI use occupy intermediate positions which shifts toward AI-generated cohorts over time. Second, we identify recurring signatures of AI-generated proofs, such as fewer externally cited results, greater reliance on intermediate conclusions, and altered graph connectivity; many of these signatures persist under controls for research field, manuscript length, or graph size. Finally, in a separate detection experiment, ProofTrace distinguishes human-written papers from those disclosing substantive AI use. Its performance remains stable under AI rewording, whereas the performance of state-of-the-art text-based detectors declines sharply.