Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?

Josu Ceberio; Borja Calvo

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2402.08298

Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?

Josu Ceberio·Borja Calvo

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Experimentation is an intrinsic part of research in artificial intelligence since it allows for collecting quantitative observations, validating hypotheses, and providing evidence for their reformulation. For that reason, experimentation must be coherent with the purposes of the research, properly addressing the relevant questions in each case. Unfortunately, the literature is full of works whose experimentation is neither rigorous nor convincing, oftentimes designed to support prior beliefs rather than answering the relevant research questions. In this paper, we focus on the field of metaheuristic optimization, since it is our main field of work, and it is where we have observed the misconduct that has motivated this letter. Even if we limit the focus of this manuscript to the experimental part of the research, our main goal is to sew the seed of sincere critical assessment of our work, sparking a reflection process both at the individual and the community level. Such a reflection process is too complex and extensive to be tackled as a whole. Therefore, to bring our feet to the ground, we will include in this document our reflections about the role of experimentation in our work, discussing topics such as the use of benchmark instances vs instance generators, or the statistical assessment of empirical results. That is, all the statements included in this document are personal views and opinions, which can be shared by others or not. Certainly, having different points of view is the basis to establish a good discussion process.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Josu Ceberio, Borja Calvo. 2024-02-13. Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08298

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗