#01Sep 1, 2026
cs.LG
Rethinking Learnability in Offline Data-driven Optimization
Chao Qian, Chen-Guang Wang, Rong-Xi Tan and 1 more
Black-Box Optimization (BBO) has found broad applications, but evolutionary algorithms and Bayesian optimization face efficiency challenges as real-world BBO problems grow increasingly complex. Data-driven optimization improves the efficiency of BBO algorithms by learning from data. Offline data-driven optimization seeks high-quality solutions using only a fixed set of previous evaluations, attracting substantial attention because it requires no additional online evaluations. Many offline optimization methods have been proposed, but a fundamental question remains unanswered: what learnability is sufficient for offline optimization? Prior theoretical studies show that Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learnability is insufficient, as the optimal region may remain poorly learned even when most regions are well learned. In this paper, we propose algorithm-dependent learnability, which requires accuracy only on the optimizer's trajectory. We prove that its value-query form is sufficient for representative discrete settings, including greedy and local search for submodular maximization, while its first-order analogue is sufficient for projected gradient descent on convex minimization. Motivated by this notion, we formalize a trajectory-learning framework comprising trajectory construction, trajectory modeling, and candidate generation, and analyze existing trajectory-based methods under it. We further propose Uncertainty-aware Gradient-guided Trajectory Learning (UGTL), which constructs locally coherent improvement trajectories reflecting plausible search paths, models them with conditional diffusion, and selects a diverse candidate set. On five Design-Bench tasks, UGTL achieves the best aggregate mean rank, $3.1/25$, among 25 methods. Controlled trajectory analyses and cross-architecture replacements confirm that our trajectory construction plays a significant role in the improvement.
#02Sep 1, 2026
cs.LG
The Structure of Quantization Damage in LLMs: Why the Next Bit Should Be Spent Globally
Jundong Hu, Shekar Ramachandran
Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to reduce the cost of serving large language models (LLMs), but its accuracy cost is uneven and is often tuned per model. We study where quantization damage occurs and how to allocate a small additional precision budget. Using causal mixed-precision intervention as ground truth (raise each layer to 8-bit in turn and measure the accuracy it recovers) across 9 open-weight models in 4 architecture families, we test 3 intuitive hypotheses: that quantization damage lives in task circuits, where the model computes, or in weight statistics. None of them predicts which layers benefit from restored precision. Recovery is instead diffuse: for 8 of 9 models, recovering 75% of the gap takes roughly half the layers; the lone exception, Qwen3-8B, is sharply concentrated. At a matched precision budget, spending it globally on finer quantization granularity beats locally repairing the most recoverable layers for all 8 group-128-compatible models (all but OpenLLaMA, whose width rules out group-128), by 21-52 points, including the concentrated Qwen3-8B. We report 2 secondary findings: the residual is budget-limited (8-bit is near-lossless in our evaluation across RTN, GPTQ, and AWQ), and the location of peak recovery correlates with architecture within a family, though not across families. Within this budget setting, global granularity is a better default than selectively protecting critical layers. More broadly, cheap signals that correlate with quantization damage do not necessarily identify where restoring precision improves accuracy; this must be tested with causal intervention.
#03Sep 1, 2026
cs.CL
CordisBench: Can Language Models Reason About Component Lifecycles in Dynamic Agent Harnesses?
Damien Sileo, Dimitri Kachler
Dynamic agent harnesses let language models change the software that shapes their own execution. This flexibility brings a new reasoning burden: a local plugin change can propagate through dependencies and cleanup. We introduce CordisBench, a 1,200-question benchmark of this lifecycle reasoning. It combines a controlled formal setting with programs executed against Cordis, a runtime that manages component dependencies and cleanup, and asks models to identify affected components, predict state after a specified teardown order, determine which conditions hold under all or some orders, and choose reconfigurations that succeed when executed. Across these tasks, we evaluate three efficiency-oriented models at low reasoning effort with 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, or 32 relevant interactions, using deterministic task-specific scoring. Models usually handle small systems well but grow less reliable as more interactions become relevant, especially when predicting final state and when reasoning across teardown orders. Additional inference effort recovers marked gains for some models. The cost is nontrivial: on our 16-interaction subset, GPT-5.6 Luna uses nearly 3,000 reasoning tokens per question at medium effort. For these controlled instances, that cost is avoidable: an independent finite reference semantics agrees with Cordis execution on every observation and action outcome used for scoring across all 528 executable questions.
#04Sep 1, 2026
cs.CL
A systematic Approach to constructing a Chance-and-Risk Matrix for Semiconductor Supply Chains
Ema Salkić, Alexander Fichtl, Philipp Ulrich and 3 more
Semiconductor supply chains face escalating risks from geopolitical tensions, geographic concentration, and rapid technological shifts, yet no scalable system continuously extracts, structures, and prioritizes risk intelligence from public corporate disclosures. We present an end-to-end pipeline that retrieves corporate documents for semiconductor companies and uses large language models (LLMs) to extract the risks and opportunities they describe. It organizes these into a knowledge graph linking each item to its category, sources, and related events, then merges duplicates and ranks them with a three-layer mechanism combining an algorithmic formula, an LLM relevance adjustment, and expert validation. Applied to five companies across the value chain, the pipeline produces 76,207 scored items, of which an independent check finds 92.6% valid. The automated rankings match expert judgment at an average Spearman correlation of 0.55 for risks and 0.72 for opportunities, and the resulting matrices identify trade restrictions as the dominant cross-company risk.
#05Sep 1, 2026
cs.AI
When Guardrails Look Effective: Construct Validity Failures in LLM Agent Commerce Evaluation
Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang
Interactive simulations increasingly evaluate policies in markets populated by language-model agents. Their outputs can look economic---prices, profits, consumer surplus, and welfare---without instantiating the behavior named in the claim. We audit this risk in a multi-turn buyer--seller testbed for configurable hotel transactions. An initial implementation reported welfare gains from two marketplace guardrails of +87.4, +35.0, and +28.8 across a Qwen2.5 1.5B--14B ladder. It also gave guarded and unguarded agents different offer schemas and choice procedures. Holding the schema and buyer chooser fixed changes the paired contrasts to +7.2, -13.9, and +23.8. The four largest 14B single-generation effects averaged +229; after three generations per profile-condition, they averaged +37.6 (95% bootstrap interval [-34.2, 109.3]), while generation residuals account for 49.9% of variation in this post-hoc probe. A seller-incentive check is non-monotone: increasing profit pressure produces less profit than the default seller prompt. Scripted positive controls show why this matters. A profit-maximizing seller already attains first-best welfare, so guardrails mostly redistribute and reduce welfare; they create welfare only when the seller is explicitly programmed to force inefficient bundles. We contribute a construct-validity contract separating incentive validity, protocol isolation, stochastic stability, and welfare accounting, and returning INVALID or INCONCLUSIVE before substantive policy claims. In our case, the original estimate is INVALID under protocol isolation, while the controlled study remains INCONCLUSIVE under incentive validity and stochastic stability. The case does not show that guardrails are ineffective; it shows their apparent value is unidentified until the simulated agents and protocol pass these checks.