#01Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
CPU-ARC: Agentic Reasoning Caching for on-CPU Reasoning Reuse
Peter Belcak, Greg Heinrich, Saurav Muralidharan and 2 more
Large language models reinvent the wheel all the time. They conflate task-solving with the execution of the solutions, which forces them to solve every problem from scratch. We show that once a task has been reasoned through, the application of its solution to a new problem instance can be done very efficiently and with little involvement from language models. We introduce agentic reasoning caching, a method for constructing robust CPU-executable agentic reasoning caches (ARCs) from LLM reasoning traces. ARCs show on-par performance with frontier LLMs across a range of difficult mathematical and scientific tasks, are fully explainable, continually trainable, robust to input perturbations, and 16-291x cheaper to invoke than the source model.
#02Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
On the (non-)closedness of the set of ReLU networks
Eloi Martinet, Leon Bungert
We prove that the set $\mathcal{N}_N$ of ReLU networks with one hidden layer and at most $N\in\mathbb N$ neurons is weakly closed in $W^{1,p}(Ω)$, for a bounded connected open set $Ω\subset\mathbb R^d$. Consequently, every coercive, weakly lower semicontinuous energy on this space attains its minimum over $\mathcal{N}_N$. This covers the Deep Ritz method with convex integrands, Sobolev training and Lipschitz learning. Moreover, as the weight decay parameter tends to zero, minimizers of the regularized problem converge, up to subsequences, to minimizers with minimal parameter norm. We also prove that the set of ReLU networks with two hidden layers of bounded widths is not closed in $W^{1,p}(Ω)$ or in $C(\overlineΩ)$. This disproves a conjecture of Petersen, Raslan and Voigtlaender.
#03Nov 6, 2026
cs.SE
When Instruction Files Go Stale: Documentation Debt and Hidden Cost in Coding Agents
Tural Mehtiyev, Biruk Tadesse, Lawrence Arkoh and 1 more
LLM-based coding agents such as Claude Code are guided by repository instruction files (also called context files or agent configuration files) like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, which are read in every agent session. As any documentation artifact, these files can fall behind the code and become stale (e.g., a test folder moves, but the file still points to the old one). In technical debt terms, such a stale instruction is documentation debt, and its interest is the cost it adds to every later agent session. Evaluations that check only task success can miss this cost, and the stale file can persist. In this study, we ask what leads agents to act on a stale instruction, how it affects their behavior and at what cost, and how they recover. We study three real-world stale instructions from active open-source repositories in depth, each a different kind of guidance: a test command, a code location, and a procedure for adding a component. Agents fix 22 maintenance tasks under three versions of each instruction (left stale, corrected to the current path, and removed), with the code and the task held fixed, and we analyze 732 trajectories of two models at the level of individual tool calls. We find that agents follow stale guidance when it is relevant to their tasks, sometimes even when correct information is available elsewhere. On the stale test command, Claude Sonnet 5.5 needed about two extra tool calls per run, a third more than with the corrected command; in the other cases, we could not detect a difference. Although agents generally recovered from the immediate failures, none repaired the underlying instruction file. Correcting the instructions eliminated operations on obsolete paths, while removing them prevented most. Our findings show that task success alone can hide the costs of documentation debt, highlighting the need to evaluate agent behavior beyond final outcomes.
#04Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
Designing Effective Monitor-Based Interventions for Mitigating Reward Hacking During RL
Aria Wong, Joshua Engels, Neel Nanda
Reinforcement learning (RL) rewards are notoriously difficult to design and control, often leading to the model learning unintended behaviors such as reward hacking. One potential solution is to monitor for reward hacking and penalize it when detected; however, training against a monitor could lead to evasive behavior, and our general understanding of how to apply monitors effectively during training is limited. To study how best to use monitors to mitigate reward hacking, we introduce and open source three realistic environments where Qwen3-4B reward hacks: a coding environment hackable via test overwriting, a medical chat environment hackable via sycophancy, and a biography generation environment hackable via hallucination. We first focus on the coding environment, where we find that: (1) models can learn to evade highly accurate monitors by exploiting systemic flaws in probes and LLM judges; (2) monitors that leak more learning signal during RL suppress reward hacking but are more often evaded; and (3) including easier problems in training can decrease reward hacking. We apply our findings to build better reward hacking monitors for the medical chat and biography generation environments that improve upon naive baselines to reduce reward hacking rates across seeds to before-training levels in some interventions. Our results demonstrate that our takeaways translate to new settings and that better monitor intervention designs are possible.
#05Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
The Cost of Coverage: Conformalising Native Forecast Uncertainty for GB Wind Power
Carl Somers
Uncertainty bands on wind forecasts help inform reserve sizing and commitments, but often fail to deliver their stated coverage. We apply conformal prediction to native bands to see what it adds and what it costs, comparing six forecasters, from ARIMA to a tabular foundation model, at two wind farms in Great Britain (GB) under operational conditions. We show that calibration repairs empirical marginal coverage with little or no Winkler Score penalty, but this apparent success conceals under-coverage in high winds. Calibrating by forecast wind regime turns marginal coverage into regime-level coverage, cutting day-ahead out-of-band volume in high winds by over 40% relative to pooled calibration while narrowing bands overall.