arXiv subjects

Junteng Tu

Publications and source records attributed to Junteng Tu.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Re-derivability Decides What a Staged Agent Pipeline Recovers After an Upstream Fault

One variable sets what an upstream fault costs a staged pipeline of language-model agents: re-derivability, how much of what a stage needs it can rebuild from the original problem. Grounding an inspector agent in that problem is worth +0.608 [+0.517, +0.700] to +0.358 over a blind one on four open-weight backbones served with thinking disabled, and on the two Qwen backbones the blind inspector changes no item at all. That head-to-head is exploratory. One deterministic fault enters the first stage, and we re-expose the original problem to $k = 0,\dots,3$ of the downstream stages with agents, items, fault and topology held fixed, on 120 gsm_hard items per arm at temperature zero. Accuracy under fault rises on four of four backbones, from +0.233 to +0.392, the largest Holm-adjusted $p$ being $2.1\times10^{-6}$. A registered kill test rules out tokens. Blanking every word holds the word slots fixed, and retention tracks the visible fraction on four of four, climbing from 0.221 to 0.692 on the primary. Those two families are confirmatory and everything else here is exploratory. The interaction excludes zero on two of four backbones under the registered pipeline, four of four under a three-stage pipeline, and three of four under full message history, the primary at +0.317. On Llama-3.1-8B the fault carries no detectable cost at any dose, so the other three carry every claim about what a fault costs. Re-derivability also sets what the architecture costs, and no decomposition we measured reliably beats one direct call. With no fault injected the registered pipeline loses to that call by -0.267, -0.125 and -0.317, and on Phi-4 reads +0.058 at $p = 0.118$, which the test fails to separate from zero. The repair that works is cheap and front-loaded: the first re-grounded stage buys +0.394 of matched retention for +59.8 tokens per item on Qwen3-14B, and the stages after it buy nothing.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Rank Collapse Is Recoverable, Growing $|Q|$ Is Not: Out-of-Sample Early Warning for Value Divergence in High-UTD Soft Actor-Critic

Raising the update-to-data (UTD) ratio breaks off-policy critics in two ways grouped as "plasticity loss": collapsing representations and growing value magnitude $|Q|$. We separate them in Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) with scaled critics (width 2048, no normalization). Collapse is survivable: at UTD ratio 16, HalfCheetah critics with most units dormant keep learning, and the training guard, which stops runs whose loss or $|Q|$ explodes, never flags them. Within one high-UTD SAC configuration, runs start close together, and how far a critic's $\log_{10}|Q|$ has climbed by step 15k, its early growth, ranks the runs by how soon the guard flags them. At 15k, a flagged run's $|Q|$ sits a median of over a hundredfold below its flag level, yet the climb's rate already orders the flags (Harrell's C and out-of-sample AUC 0.78 on Walker2d, 0.98 on Ant, at UTD ratio 4). Dormancy does not. Aborting on this rate saves about a tenth of held-out Walker2d compute and stays net-positive live. A LayerNorm critic lowers the rate, removes the flag on Walker2d at UTD ratio 4 and lowers the return.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Decomposition Tax: LLM Pipelines Lose Up to 40 Accuracy Points at Their Own Interfaces

A four-stage LLM pipeline gives up as much as 40.5 accuracy points at its own interfaces (gemma-3-12B on MATH-500, Holm-corrected p = 1.66e-19; the largest tax in the primary family). We hold model, problem, stages, stage prompts and completion budget fixed, vary only whether each stage can still see the original problem, and call the accuracy difference the decomposition tax. Across 21 open-weight models from nine organisations, on GSM-Hard and MATH-500 at n = 200 paired items per cell, 70 of 118 primary-family tests survive Benjamini-Hochberg correction and 54 survive Holm. On GSM-Hard, a placebo recovers nothing: it carries at least 60% of the extra tokens and at most one word of the problem. Builders design a pipeline one stage at a time, and its bill arrives at the interfaces between stages. Rewriting one stage's instruction moves gemma-3-12B's tax from 4.5 to 36.5 points, and adding "every relationship stated between them" to a stage that lists the numerical quantities lowers the tax on 9 of 9 models on MATH-500. Re-grounding, which shows a stage the original problem again, belongs after the loss. With one lossy interface, re-grounding the stage after it beats re-grounding the stage before it on 7 of 7 models on both benchmarks; on MATH-500 the earlier repair is worse than none on 7 of 7. Newer models still pay: gemma-4-12B gives up 37.0 points, and the repair holds on all three of the newest models we test. A sealed held-out test refuted a stronger rule we registered, which predicted the paying stage from the interface and receiver types, so we locate the tax by measuring one stage at a time. The prescription has two parts: re-ground the stage after the lossy interface, and if a stage must list the quantities, tell it to keep the relationships.

cs.AI↗