Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Éric Jacopin

Publications and source records attributed to Éric Jacopin.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

HTN Planning as a Coordination Layer for Multi-Server MCP Tool Orchestration

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) isolates servers by design: only the host can orchestrate cross-server workflows. When the host is a large language model, the resulting orchestrations are non-deterministic, non-reproducible, and pay one inference round-trip per tool call. We present a coordination architecture in which a Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planner generates a verifiable cross-server plan once, and a runtime middleware executes it deterministically across multiple MCP servers, binding cross-action data dependencies via a template mechanism (\verb|${context.X}|) substituted at execution time. The architecture mirrors MCP's isolation constraint: each compound task decomposes into server-local primitive actions, and inter-server data flow is bound at execution time via JSON-path output extractors. We instantiate the architecture on five HTN domains spanning laboratory robotics, bioinformatics and multiscale modelling, and demonstrate end-to-end execution from a browser-based plan controller against eight live third-party MCP servers querying real biological databases.

cs.AI↗

Planning or Improvisation? Stress-Testing the Poetry Planning Site on Open Models and Open Cross-Layer Transcoders

Lindsey et al. (2025) report that Claude 3.5 Haiku plans rhymes: features for candidate rhyme words are active on the newline before a line is written, and a suppress-and-inject intervention redirects the line only when applied there (their Figure 13). We test how far this generalizes on seven cells crossing four open models (0.6B to 2.6B parameters) with six open cross-layer transcoders (CLTs), on one consumer GPU, decomposing the claim into position specificity (C1), newline site identity (C2), and a newline-resident plan (C3). This is a stress test rather than a faithful reproduction: attribution graphs are unavailable for these CLTs, so features are found bottom-up from decoder vectors. C1 generalizes, in every cell and in all 247 of 444 prompt-by-inject pairs with a detectable effect, but the effective position is the final prompt token, adjacent to emission, and only two cells reach behaviorally meaningful probabilities. C2 and C3 are not recovered by any probe: a census of every active feature finds no rhyme-anticipating enrichment at the newline, and steering the newline while the model composes the whole line, over 36 runs and 8,640 sampled lines, shows why. That intervention is strong but one token long, making the injected word the first word of the composed line in 703 of 720 samples and leaving the rhyme six words later untouched. A final test drops the transcoder entirely: patching the newline's whole residual, at every layer, from a minimal-pair poem whose third line ends on a different rhyme moves the rhyme in 11 of 1,260 composed lines against 4 at baseline, with a design resolving 1.4%. We read this as a boundary condition rather than a refutation: at this scale and with these transcoders, the causal site is emission-adjacent. We reproduce Figure 13's shape, not its mechanism. Code and data are public (code: github.com/PCfVW/poetry-planning-site).

cs.CL↗

What Is the Minimum Architecture for Prolepsis? Early Irrevocable Commitment Across Tasks in Small Transformers

When do transformers commit to a decision, and what prevents them from correcting it? We introduce prolepsis: a transformer commits early, task-specific attention heads sustain the commitment, and no layer corrects it. Replicating Lindsey et al.'s (2025) planning-site finding on open models (Gemma 2 2B, Llama 3.2 1B), we ask five questions. (Q1) Planning is invisible to six residual-stream methods; among those tested, only CLT-based steering succeeds. (Q2) The single-site spike replicates in shape, at the final prompt token (Anthropic's site is the newline; see the Note added). (Q3) Specific attention heads route the decision to the output, filling a gap flagged as invisible to attribution graphs. (Q4) The evidence is consistent with search within at most 16 layers and commitment beyond, a two-model hypothesis. (Q5) Factual recall shows the same motif at a different network depth, with zero overlap between recurring planning heads and the factual top-10. Prolepsis recurs across tasks in the decoder-only models tested: the template is shared, the routing substrates differ. All experiments run on a single consumer GPU (16 GB VRAM).

cs.LG↗

Co-Located Tests, Better AI Code: How Test Syntax Structure Affects Foundation Model Code Generation

AI coding assistants increasingly generate code alongside tests. How developers structure test code, whether inline with the implementation or in separate blocks, has traditionally been a matter of testing philosophy. We investigate whether this choice affects AI code generation quality. We conduct a large-scale empirical study (830+ generated files, 12 models, 3 providers) using SEGA, a three-dimensional evaluation framework measuring Determinism, Preservation, and Correctness. Comparing inline test syntax (Python doctests) against separated test syntax (Rust #[test] blocks) on a d-ary heap implementation, we find that: (1) inline tests yield near-perfect preservation (100%) and correctness (92-100%) across all models; (2) separated tests expose stark model-tier gaps (0-100% correctness) and independence between preservation and correctness; (3) model behavior evolves across generations, and notably one model breaks the test suppression pattern of its three predecessors; (4) mechanistic analysis on 7 open-source architectures (6 transformers and a gated-linear Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)) reveals inline test markers receive 2.8-4.4$\times$ stronger attention in 5/7 models, with causal validation via knockout and steering experiments on the 4 code-specialized transformers and RWKV-6; the co-location mechanism extends to a non-transformer architecture, suggesting the design recommendation is robust to future architectural shifts. In the Foundation Model era, test syntax structure is a software design concern: co-locating tests with implementation code produces measurably better AI-generated code. This arxiv long version includes appendices that further qualify the effect as bounded by both model capability and programming language.

cs.SE↗