arXiv AI By Ayushi Chadha

A Score Is Not a Policy: Measuring the Value of Adaptive Revision

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates how a higher‑level controller in a hierarchical latent reasoner decides whether to preserve or replace a lower‑level strategy. Experiments across different training seeds show that learned revision timing can produce varied policies, but none surpasses a fixed, forced timing policy on the same checkpoint. The study highlights that state‑dependent control can alter actions without improving task performance, and that timing decisions are order‑sensitive and largely captured by a strong fixed schedule.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
5d ago

Learning from Revision Consequences: Hindsight Meta-Experience Distillation for Self-Improving Agents

The paper introduces Hindsight Meta-Experience Distillation (HMED), a method that lets self‑improving agents evaluate how revisions to their Meta‑Skills affect skill discovery by re‑executing both the original and revised Meta‑Skills from the same initial state. By comparing these outcomes, HMED creates structured Meta‑Experiences that provide learning signals even for revisions that are not ultimately kept. Experiments on three interactive benchmarks show that HMED consistently outperforms strong baselines, improving skill discovery by focusing on the consequences of the improvement process rather than just branch outcomes.

By Qianhan Feng, Zhongzhen Huang, Yakun Zhu, Xiaofan Zhang, Qi Dou
arXiv AI
3d ago

On the Clock: Towards Punctual and Productive Time-Budgeted AI Agents

The paper investigates whether small large language model agents can operate within explicit wall‑clock time budgets while using the allotted time productively. Experiments with Qwen3.6‑27B on MLE‑Bench Lite and Qwen3‑4B on Zork I show that agents fail to translate budget statements into controlled time use, largely due to lack of timing feedback and poor anticipation of action durations. Interventions such as harness‑based timing exposure, enforcement hooks, and reinforcement learning with budget‑aware rewards improve budget adherence but do not lead to better task performance, revealing a persistent gap between respecting time limits and effectively allocating extra time.

By Aaron Wang, Neelabh Madan, Vlad Sobal, Matthew Trager, Michael Kleinman, Elman Mansimov, Wei Xia, Stefano Soatto
arXiv Machine Learning
3d ago

Reliability-Aware Future Conditioning for Temporally Robust Robot Manipulation

The paper introduces Reliability‑Aware Future Conditioning (RAFC), a method that dynamically estimates how much to trust a generated future video clip and selects the most appropriate temporal hypothesis for robot manipulation tasks. By treating temporal misalignment as a control problem rather than a generation problem, RAFC improves success rates on the CALVIN benchmark and a Franka robot under various timing mismatches, outperforming static and uniform‑averaging baselines. The approach builds on Future‑Experience Conditioning (FEC) and learns solely from task reward without explicit alignment supervision.

By Mohammad Khoshnazar, Mohammad Dehghani Tezerjani, Zhiyuan Gao, Deyuan Qu, Max Gandyra, Yanxiang Zhan, Mehreen Naeem, Andrew Melnik, Jeroen Schafer, Qing Yang, Michael Beetz
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 1

The Intervention Gap in Latent World Models

The paper introduces the concept of intervention fidelity in latent world models, measuring whether a model’s open‑loop transitions align with actual environment interventions. Experiments on TD‑MPC2, Cheetah, and DreamerV3 show that high reward fit does not guarantee fidelity, and that self‑supervised models can outperform task‑anchored ones in preserving intervention effects. The authors propose a capture‑gated audit to localize failures and argue that fidelity must be directly audited on the model’s native interface.

By Donna Vakalis