#01Oct 22, 2026
cs.LG
Questioning Instrumental Convergence in RLVR: Checkpoint Evidence from OLMo-3
Barış Alparslan, Sandy Tanwisuth, Caleb Petterson
Instrumental convergence is often invoked as a general reason to expect capable agents to acquire or express power-seeking subgoals: self-preservation, resource acquisition, deception, or resistance to oversight which poses an important threat to the society. For LLMs, reinforcement learning is the first stage of post-training that directly optimizes behavior against an objective; therefore, it is the stage where convergent instrumental behavior, on IC grounds, likely to appear. Does reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) make a model more likely to express instrumental-convergence behavior, or does this depend on the training regime, evaluation frame, and stage of post-training? We study this question as a checkpoint-conditioned behavioral trajectory rather than as a single before/after safety score. Using InstrumentalEval, we evaluate OLMo-3-7B-Think across SFT, DPO, 13 intermediate RLVR checkpoints, and the final RLVR model. The trajectory is nonmonotonic: instrumental rate rises from 25.0% at SFT to 46.1% near RLVR step 200, then falls to 11.8% at the final checkpoint. Paired item-level tests and step-wise regression support the final SFT-to-RLVR reduction. Prompt framing does not explain this pattern: a harmful-prompt indicator combined with other framing effects explains only 15% of within-checkpoint score variance on average, and Iterative Null-space Projection (INLP) removes a detectable framing direction without changing the SFT-to-final-RLVR gap. Together with preliminary 32B endpoint results (35.53% SFT to 22.37% RLVR final), these findings indicate that RLVR does not monotonically increase instrumental behavior in this setting: the rate rises early, then falls below the SFT baseline. The result is specific to this model family and benchmark, and judge agreement is moderate, so absolute rates should be read cautiously.
#02Oct 22, 2026
cs.LG
Cost-Aware Abstention for LLM-Based IT Ticket Classification
Sachin Gupta
Wrong automatic routing of an IT support ticket can cost more than human triage. We evaluate cost-aware abstention as an offline, cost-conditional readiness assessment: select a routing policy on calibration data under explicit costs, then evaluate that frozen policy once on held-out test data. On a public 47,837-ticket, eight-class corpus, we compare four trained non-LLM classifiers with four large language models under zero- and few-shot prompting. Under the illustrative cost model (c_ok, c_triage, c_wrong) = (0, 1, 5), TF-IDF with logistic regression and a threshold of 0.60 selected on calibration reduces test cost from 0.763 to 0.472, a 38.1% relative reduction (paired ratio-bootstrap 95% CI [35.7%, 40.4%]), while lowering wrong routes from 15.3% to 3.5%. Frozen calibration-selected policies also beat both always-route and always-defer on held-out test data in 14 of 16 settings in a post-hoc cost-parameter analysis. The strongest prompted configuration reaches 0.477 accuracy on a stratified 1,000-ticket test subset, versus 0.879 for fine-tuned DistilBERT on the same tickets. Isotonic lowers expected calibration error without reliably improving discrimination: GPT-4o-mini few-shot has one confidence value before and after recalibration and correctness AUROC 0.500. We therefore report correctness AUROC and tie-aware risk-coverage area alongside ECE. At the analytically derived break-even probability 0.80, seven prompted configurations defer all tickets; Haiku few-shot routes only 19/1,000. An LLM-only agreement control and margin/entropy rejection baselines further separate calibration from discrimination. The findings are scoped to this dataset, prompt design, model endpoints, and illustrative costs; the work is an evaluation framework, not a new abstention algorithm or universal deployment certification.
#03Oct 22, 2026
cs.LG
BeNice! Closing Looping's Inference-Memory Gap via KV-Sharing
Hayden Prairie, Jacob M. Ryan, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick and 1 more
Looped architectures scale quality while keeping parameter count fixed by repeatedly passing activations through the same block of layers. During inference, each recurrence generates independent KV-caches, causing memory to grow linearly. To address this challenge, prior work has proposed KV-sharing (i.e., sharing KV-caches across depth), finding that, in some cases, the KV-cache of the final recurrence can be shared with the earlier recurrences without quality loss, a property we denote as KV-shareability. However, the mechanisms underlying KV-shareability remain poorly understood, with even identically trained looped architectures not consistently exhibiting it. In this paper, we study how KV-shareability can be enabled in looped models. We propose a two-stage method: in the first stage, we use stochastic depth during pretraining, which induces contractive residual dynamics that drive representations toward a common limit across recurrences. In the second stage, we propose BeNice!, a post-training method that broadcasts the final recurrence's KV-cache into the first recurrence, training it to produce compatible residuals while preserving the original model's quality. As a result, BeNice! enables KV-shareability while matching standard finetuning's unshared validation perplexity. Using BeNice!, we show that KV-sharing is complementary to alternative KV-compression methods, composing with memory-efficient sequence mixers (e.g., multi-latent attention, Kimi delta attention) and low-precision KV-cache quantization (e.g., fp8, mxfp8, nvfp4). Finally, in simulated low-memory, long-context inference, KV-sharing improves cache hit rates by up to 31.4%, increases throughput by up to 23.6%, and reduces p90 time-to-first-token by up to 83.6%.
#04Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
What Makes a Good Unmasking Policy? A Controlled Study of Learned Unmasking in Diffusion Language Models
Jinya Sakurai, Xun Xu, Jaehong Yoon
Masked diffusion language models generate tokens in parallel, but their efficiency depends on which predictions are committed. Learned unmasking policies improve the speed--accuracy trade-off, yet differ in supervision, inputs, and capacity, obscuring which choices matter. We view supervised policies as distilling a decoding procedure through a teacher and examine independently what the teacher labels as committable, on which states the policy imitates it, what the policy observes, and how much the number of function evaluations (NFE) must decrease to offset policy overhead. We find that labeling predictions matching the final output is overly permissive at low NFE, and hidden states are weak alone but can complement confidence. About a 10% NFE reduction suffices to offset policy overhead for policies up to 7.5M parameters across tested settings. We therefore train a policy on trajectory-contraction targets, which accept only commitments staying on a reference trajectory, using confidence and hidden states. On LLaDA-8B-Instruct, the resulting 856K-parameter policy achieves the best accuracy--NFE frontier and highest throughput on GSM8K, is competitive at moderate targets on MATH-500 and HumanEval, and largely transfers to Dream-7B-Instruct.
#05Oct 22, 2026
cs.LG
When to Follow the Teacher: Advantage-Based On-Policy Distillation
Mahdi Sabbaghi, George Pappas, Hamed Hassani and 1 more
Online Policy Distillation (OPD) often outperforms offline methods such as Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) by training on trajectories sampled directly from the student. However, standard OPD trains the student to follow the teacher at every state of the trajectory, assuming that teacher guidance is always beneficial. We instead distinguish between what the teacher prefers and what actually helps the current student succeed. We introduce Advantage-Based On-Policy Distillation (AOPD), which weights teacher actions by their counterfactual advantage under the student. Teacher actions that improve the student's expected outcome are reinforced, while those that do not are downweighted. Directly computing these advantages requires trying alternative teacher actions at each step and running new rollouts from each. Instead, we show that the AOPD objective can be estimated using only standard student rollouts and their terminal rewards. Our estimator uses teacher importance weights on the student-sampled actions to provide unbiased advantage-weighted supervision, without any additional rollouts or reward evaluations. This allows AOPD to focus teacher supervision on actions that help the current student while preserving the rollout efficiency of standard OPD. Experiments on math, coding, and Medqa show gains over distillation and RL baselines in both external-teacher and self-distillation settings.