arXiv AI By Guilin Zhang, Kai Zhao

Winning by Peeking: Unenforced Budgets and Test-Set Selection Inflate Short-Budget AutoML Comparisons

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 07303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets -- tens of seconds rather than hours -- are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong.

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 Machine Learning
1d ago

How Much Can Language Models Gain from Test-Time Computation?

The paper investigates how test‑time computation can enhance language models and at what cost, introducing the SELF‑POT benchmark to evaluate this across competition mathematics, competitive programming, and agentic workflows. SELF‑POT separates candidate coverage from final accuracy, tracks correctness transitions under revision, and measures protocol completion alongside task success. Using a unified budget rule, the study compares direct inference, parallel sampling, and self‑revision across five low‑cost reasoning models, revealing that selection rules and failure handling significantly influence gains and cost savings.

By Bangji Yang, Jingyuan Li, Jiajun Fan, Yi Evie Zhang, Ruihan Guo, Hongba Ma, Neil He, Chumeng Liang, Qinglong Zheng, Zhanghan Ni, Ge Liu
arXiv AI
Jun 29

When Is an LLM Worth It for Hyperparameter Optimization? A Budget-Matched Study on Tabular Data Finds the Warm-Start Is a Default Configuration, Not the Model

arXiv:2606. 21641v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as hyperparameter-optimization (HPO) advisors that "warm-start" search from prior knowledge, proposing strong configurations in very few evaluations.

By Carson Rodrigues, Oysturn Vas, Isaiah Abner DCosta, Nithish Kumar Prabhakaran
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Agents Don't Paginate: First-Chunk Selection for LLM Tool Responses

The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.

By Tatiana Petrova, Andrei Mazniak, Radu State
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Are Coreset Selection Methods Worth Their Cost?

The paper evaluates coreset selection methods by incorporating both selection and training time into a unified wall‑clock budget, using a standardized benchmark across four datasets and multiple selectors. Across numerous budget anchors, simple random or full‑data training consistently outperforms sophisticated selectors, and selection costs are dominated by a full‑dataset scan that cannot be amortized. The study also identifies when subset reuse can justify selection and reports several correctness fixes in a popular codebase.

By Yangze Liu, Zhongyi Han
arXiv AI
Sep 17

AutoTuneBench: Trustworthy Measurement for Agent Auto-Tuning of LLM Serving Engines

AutoTuneBench introduces a trustworthy measurement protocol for evaluating how large language model agents auto‑tune GPU kernels and serving engines. The benchmark addresses four failure modes—strawman baselines, machine‑dependent timing, saturated tasks, and infrastructure defects—by enforcing code‑frozen protocols, database validation, anti‑cheat checks, pre‑registered comparisons, and external result anchoring. Using this protocol, the authors demonstrate that previously reported speedups are inflated, revealing more modest improvements across different engines and machines.

By Li Chen