arXiv subjects

Roberto I. Ono Filho

Publications and source records attributed to Roberto I. Ono Filho.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Moving the Mean Toward the Known Good, Not Beyond It: What Inference-Time Interventions and Weight Consolidation Buy in Open-Ended Generation

What does a generation loop gain from learning on its own verified successes? In cycles of generate, verify, select and LoRA-consolidate on online bin packing, training on value-filtered candidates shifts what the model writes on held-out variants toward value (-1.7 points of excess, p=0.008; -3.1 against a random-consolidation control, p=0.004) while the best observed candidate converges to the classic heuristic's level and no further. A confirmation battery replicates the whole procedure three times, with fresh seeds and a never-consulted held-out set read exactly once: the mean was nearly identical in all three lineages (-2.0, -1.8, -1.9), and after aggregating within held-out variant all seven evaluable variants favored consolidation (p=0.008). The best observed candidate moved to the classic heuristic's level, exactly (0.021028 in all three lineages, for attract and for the random control alike), and never beyond it. A matched SFT-only control shows the supervised anchor, not repulsion from bad candidates, does the concentrating (96% of candidates land exactly at the classic heuristic's level). The tails cut both ways: consolidation lowers the per-candidate rate of better-than-classic candidates (10% to 3.9%) while its larger production yields more such candidates absolutely (5 against 1, on few events). As motivation we report the inference-time ledger that led here: a model-written schematic recap buys judged document integration and nothing buys development; a verifier written into the stream is imitated, 16.4 fabricated verdict lines per notebook. Mean quality among valid candidates can be bought and replicated; the observed best goes to the classic and, so far, never beyond it.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Operator Packages, Proposer Strength, and Construction-Family Plateaus in Office-Scale Verified Search

Verified search, in which a language model proposes programs, a hard evaluator scores them, and selection keeps the best, has recently moved mathematical records; controlled ablations of the proposer-side components remain rare. We instrument a minimal FunSearch-style loop at office scale (a 30B local model on a laptop, 120-600 verified samples per run) with three operator packages: a schematic notebook the model writes and carries instead of verbatim elites, a named obstacle, and behavioural repulsion from constructions already found. On nine construction problems from a public repository, the complete 2^3 factorial with two replicates favours the primary contrast in a nominal two-stage analysis: the composition closes more of the seed-to-record gap (+0.196; nominal pooled p=0.023, stage-combination p~0.08; median per-problem effect +0.045). Repulsion raises construction-hash diversity everywhere (p=0.0039; partly a manipulation check). The factorial finds no positive memory-by-repulsion interaction (bounded to about +/-0.04); the gain decomposes additively, and memory+repulsion is the only arm that never collapses (0 of 18 runs), within 0.025 of the full composition. A frontier proposer under the identical loop reaches in tens of samples what the local model does not in hundreds; in single scoping runs its gains arrive without the operators. The search stalls after closing ~92% of the gap on the flagship problem, and the registered family-hint test gives the stall its first reading: named in words, the reference family is adopted and loses; handed as code, it is optimized, but our best finite-grid implementation remains below the plateau reached unaided. The loop transported and optimized the idea it was handed; no unaided run produced it. We release the harness, every candidate, and the dated pre-registrations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Interrupting the Loop: Periodic Subject Changes Raise Judged Surprise and Connection in Base Language Models

Where does the novelty a base language model produces with no task come from, and what can an LLM judge of a long stream actually see? We dismantle a cognitively inspired generation loop over 24 conditions on three base models. Most of its effect lives in one operation: a new subject injected every few hundred tokens (an interruption) into a stream whose literal repetition is damped (habituation). We judge windows of generated text only, with the premise as the unit (n=10) and a judge measured for repeatability, against a second judge family and against human readers. Under that protocol the interruption raises judged surprise by 1.2 to 1.4 points and connection by 0.8 over habituation alone. A connective that asks for continuity hurts; a bare paragraph break adds nothing detectable on fresh text; a reset context does at least as well as a kept one; and a pre-registered replication on new premises confirms the primary contrast. Three things the window judge could not see changed the first version of this study, and we think they are of general use. The judge scores the experimenter's injected sentence as the model's own. A fixed rotation of injected sentences makes the model replay its earlier segments from beyond the judge's horizon, and the judge scores the replay as surprise and connection (65-80% of post-interruption windows at periods 150-300). And the local gains do not compose: no arm produces an integrated document. The salience monitor, the in-loop judge, memory across interruptions and a judge-gated Review run with a gate that opens add nothing. On a problem with a verifier (online bin packing), the interruption multiplies valid, distinct candidate heuristics three- to fourfold without raising the quality of the best. We report an evaluation protocol for long generation and a controlled characterization of a simple intervention, not a mechanism of creativity.

cs.CL↗