#01Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Test-Time Compute Scales Better with Parallel Agent Teams
Junlin Wang, Haozhe Chen, Ang Li and 2 more
Test-time scaling improves the performance of a fixed model by spending more computation at inference. There are two common ways to spend it on agents when a verifier can score every attempt. Best-of-N sampling runs many independent agents and keeps the best result but saturates quickly. One large team of collaborating agents can score higher but stops improving as it grows. Can we get the best of both? Our method, parallel agent teams, does so by sampling many small teams in parallel and keeping the best team's result. We test it on 12 long-horizon tasks from GPU kernels and formal proofs to exploit development. With a 27B model and a budget of 100 agents, parallel teams of ten beat parallel agents on 10 of 12 tasks and beat one team of 100 on all four tasks where we ran such large teams. At equal dollar cost the same parallel teams beat a frontier model on half the tasks. A simple statistical model shows that individual agents lose because their many samples have a low mean and that one large team loses because a single sample gets no gain from variance. Sampling many small teams in parallel balances a high mean with the gain from variance. Parallel agent teams thus offer a more effective way to scale test-time compute.
#02Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Maya a1: Do the Options Read the Model, or Does Their Position? Order Sensitivity in a Non-Autoregressive Decision Model
Mohammed Nayeem Khan, Logesh L
Laya answers typed multiple-choice questions in one forward pass by scoring a hidden state at one [MASK] marker per option. We re-engineer the checkpoint (421M parameters; a 2-layer option head with no positional tensor; a documented but unused parallel layout) and test whether the answer depends on where an option is listed. Presenting 951 Qwen-verified questions under every cyclic rotation of their options (or six random permutations for 12 options), the released checkpoint changes its answer for 25.8% [22.9-28.7] of questions (19.7% on the 605 English-language items alone); accuracy with the gold option first versus last differs by 10.1 points, and the flips concentrate where the model's own confidence is low (54% versus 8% across confidence terciles). Fine-tuning with Laya's trainer on 2,818 teacher-verified rows with option shuffling cuts the flip rate to 7.2%; the identical rows without shuffling give 11.4%, so shuffling is responsible for 4.2 points of the improvement. A confidence-weighted vote over orderings gives 69.7% against 69.1% for a single base pass at 4.1x the compute. Labels are LLM-made and the test sets are teacher-filtered. We also fine-tune with the authors' parallel layout on the same rows: flip rate 0.5%.
#03Nov 6, 2026
cs.CV
Graded convolutional networks: scale invariance without the scale and robustness to unknown blur
Tanush Shaska
The Gaussian jet of an image is a graded vector space: a dilation by $λ$ multiplies derivatives of order $k$ by $λ^{-k}$. Local graded convolutions are exactly homogeneous differential operators, and a local feature is dilation-invariant if and only if it factors through the scale-normalized jet or, without the scale, through the retraction onto the weighted sphere of the grading. Under unknown Gaussian blur the retraction changes only by a change of scale, whereas the scale-normalized jet acquires a grading factor that no radial normalization removes. At the zero jet the retraction separates image families that radial normalizations and continuous classifiers cannot. Networks built on the retraction are universal for invariant features. On MNIST such a network keeps 88.4% accuracy under a two-pixel blur, against 66.2% for the same network on scale-normalized derivatives; in Lindeberg's Gaussian derivative network the retraction raises accuracy at that blur from 91.5% to 95.1%.
#04Nov 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.
#05Nov 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.