arXiv subjects

Manish Shah

Publications and source records attributed to Manish Shah.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Diagnosing and Mitigating Retrieval Bottlenecks in LLM-Based Cold-Start Recommendation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in recommender systems, with the expectation that semantic understanding will help in cold-start and long-tail regimes. We test this assumption with a five-domain benchmark that explicitly separates reranking quality from retrieval coverage. In a positive-controlled regime where the gold item is guaranteed present, calibrated LLM rerankers fail to consistently outperform strong collaborative and content baselines under natural traffic, and within-family scaling from Qwen3-8B to Qwen3-32B narrows but does not close the gap on most domains. In a retrieval-realistic regime where the gold item is not injected, the bottleneck is more severe: standard single retrievers place the gold item in a 200-item pool only 4.6-22.9% of the time, largely because 32-91% of cold-start targets are brand-new items with no training interactions. We introduce LHF, a validation-trained learned hybrid fusion layer over a multi-retriever union pool, as a retrieval-side realizability baseline. LHF is the only combiner we test that beats every single retriever on all five domains and recovers 17-61% of oracle coverage headroom on content-rich domains, but only 5-7% on collaboratively strong domains. End-to-end experiments reveal the remaining mismatch: learned non-LLM ranking exploits the LHF pool, while prompt-level LLM reranking often degrades it. LLMs exhibit pockets of semantic cold-start advantage, especially in text-rich domains when the item is already present, but this advantage is largely unreachable in current retrieve-then-rerank pipelines. We release the benchmark protocol, splits, prompts, evaluation tooling, and archived reproducibility artifacts: data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20991039 and code at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20993306.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Know Before You Fetch: Calibrated Retrieval-Budget Allocation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically retrieves a fixed number of passages for every query. This is wasteful when the reader already knows the answer, and it can be harmful when irrelevant or partially relevant passages distract the reader. We formulate adaptive RAG as calibrated retrieval-budget allocation: given a query, decide whether to answer closed-book, retrieve a compact context (k=1), retrieve a full context (k=5), or abstain. The contribution is a probability interface rather than a new raw uncertainty signal. We calibrate sequence log-probability and prefix-logit uncertainty signals into probabilities of correctness, then use these probabilities for graded context selection, selective abstention, and explicit latency/token trade-offs. Across core QA experiments on TriviaQA, Natural Questions, and MS MARCO, with auxiliary PopQA motivation and Qwen/Llama family checks, diagnostic out-of-fold calibration improves probability quality dramatically: for sequence log-probability, ECE drops from 0.275 to 0.062 on TriviaQA, 0.643 to 0.009 on NQ, and 0.711 to 0.031 on MS MARCO. Graded retrieval improves full-context and passage-budget frontiers for both our signal and TARG-style prefix entropy/margin, while retrieval-call AUC remains essentially tied with binary gating because k=1 is still a retrieval call. Held-out train/validation/test threshold experiments report deployable operating points. At matched-accuracy frontier operating points, a measured cost model reveals that gating is not universally faster: it increases latency by about 27% on Qwen3-8B but saves about 8% on Qwen3-32B. These results support a nuanced view of adaptive RAG: calibrated confidence is best understood as a reusable interface for allocating retrieval budget under task and system constraints.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

When Does Learning to Stop Help? A Cost-Aware Study of Early Exits in Reasoning Models

Reasoning models spend test-time compute unevenly across instances, and a growing family of early-exit rules -- confidence thresholds, entropy monitors, answer-stability checks, and learned stoppers -- promises to reclaim the waste. These rules, however, are evaluated under heterogeneous protocols that leave the deployment question unanswered: at a fixed tolerance for losing correct answers, which policy saves more compute, and does the saving survive probe overhead? We answer this question with a controlled study across 18 task-model settings spanning GSM8K, MATH-500, MMLU-Pro, AIME-90, and GPQA on Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1-distilled models, using LearnStop, a hidden-state-free logistic stopper over prefix-observable features, as the learned policy instrument. Under matched lost-correct risk at $\alpha$ = 0.15, with the scalar competitor selected on calibration data from confidence, entropy, confidence-leap, and run-stability exits, the answer forms three regimes. Learned stopping wins on all four primary Qwen3 free-form math settings (+3.2 to +21.2 pp additional total-token saving); calibrated scalar exits win on multiple-choice MMLU-Pro; and small hard benchmarks (AIME-90, GPQA) admit no certifiable aggressive policy at all. A trajectory decomposition predicts the regime: learning pays where answers oscillate and correctness evidence is spread across complementary signals, while a single confidence threshold suffices where most instances are already solved at the first checkpoint. Cost accounting sharpens the picture further -- the same policy that saves 32% of tokens under KV-cache forking costs 121% extra under black-box repeated prefilling. Together, these results replace the single-method race with a decision procedure for choosing a stopping rule from the trajectory structure and serving regime of the target workload.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Tracking the Behavioral Trajectories of Adapting Agents

Text files such as skill files, memory files, and behavioral configuration files play a central role in defining how modern agents act. Through edits by humans or the agents themselves, these files may evolve over time, directly steering the agent's behavior in future interactions. We present a methodology and framework for measuring agent $traits$ by defining traits as directions in the embedding space of a text embedding model. We train a linear model on labeled "before" versus "after" skill file diffs to learn a trait vector, then score arbitrary skill edits by projecting their embedding diffs onto this vector. Evaluated on 68 labeled skill diff pairs for the trait of propensity to seek sensitive data, our method achieves 91.2% sign classification accuracy and a Spearman rank correlation of $\rho = 0.82$ under leave-one-out cross-validation. We build this trait evaluation into a broader agent-to-agent protocol that enables one agent to evaluate another's skill file updates through a trusted intermediary.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Behavioral Fingerprints for LLM Endpoint Stability and Identity

The consistency of AI-native applications depends on the behavioral consistency of the model endpoints that power them. Traditional reliability metrics such as uptime, latency and throughput do not capture behavioral change, and an endpoint can remain "healthy" while its effective model identity changes due to updates to weights, tokenizers, quantization, inference engines, kernels, caching, routing, or hardware. We introduce Stability Monitor, a black-box stability monitoring system that periodically fingerprints an endpoint by sampling outputs from a fixed prompt set and comparing the resulting output distributions over time. Fingerprints are compared using a summed energy distance statistic across prompts, with permutation-test p-values as evidence of distribution shift aggregated sequentially to detect change events and define stability periods. In controlled validation, Stability Monitor detects changes to model family, version, inference stack, quantization, and behavioral parameters. In real-world monitoring of the same model hosted by multiple providers, we observe substantial provider-to-provider and within-provider stability differences.

cs.AI↗