arXiv subjects

Chih-Hsuan Yang

Publications and source records attributed to Chih-Hsuan Yang.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What Is This Memory Useful For? Measuring Task-Conditioned Utility in Long-Term Agent Memory

A stored experience may answer one future question and offer little help with another. We measure this task-conditioned utility rather than assigning each memory a single importance score. A task-blind writer stores a memory without seeing the later task; a frozen reader then answers that task with and without the memory, using identical filler. A cost ledger records the resources used to form, store and expose the memory. On single-call factual-recall tasks built from LongMemEval-V2 web-agent memories, the same memory helps more when it contains information needed for the answer. Its mean paired reward gain on these answer-bearing task pairs exceeds that on matched-control pairs by $+0.33$ (95% interval $+0.21$ to $+0.46$). The tested task-blind summaries and structured records yield smaller gains than Raw, including at fixed total context; a budget sweep is consistent with retention of answer-bearing content contributing to the difference. The bearing--control contrast remains positive in a new session with randomized memory position and under a second reader, although individual memory--task labels change. Generic retrieval performs above chance but misses most screen-defined answer-bearing memories. The factual-recall gains do not extend to the tested software-engineering and scientific-coding benchmarks, where even raw memories have no measurable effect. We provide a public, versioned Conditional Memory Utility Dataset of paired measurements and costs. The practical takeaway is to evaluate memory compression by the task utility it preserves alongside its costs. Task-conditioned measurements make this comparison possible; their stability must also be checked.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Division of Labor: How Roles Shape Feedback and Recovery in Multi-Agent Systems

Roles in multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems allocate decisions as well as work. In a Planner--Executor--Reviewer team, the Reviewer's approval can determine when the team submits an answer and receives corrective feedback. We study both functions by varying role instructions while holding agents, topology, call budget, and ground-truth evaluator constant, using three open-weight models on Omni-MATH and two on SciBench. Removing roles largely eliminates functional specialization without lowering first-pass accuracy. After a failed first answer, however, submission decisions matter: a role-structured Reviewer often withholds approval, so its team submits less often and receives fewer evaluator verdicts. In an exploratory comparison with feedback available to both teams, the role-free team recovers more often across all five model--benchmark settings. Two further analyses support the importance of feedback opportunities. In a post hoc comparison at equal numbers of verdicts, the pooled recovery difference is small (role-structured minus role-free: $+0.009$, 95% interval $[-0.014,+0.033]$). In an exploratory intervention on $400$ Omni-MATH problems with gemma-4, keeping the role prompts but forcing submission in every cycle raises recovery from $0.198$ to $0.613$; the paired comparison detects no difference from the role-free team. The takeaway is to evaluate roles through recovery after failure as well as specialization. For systems with reliable external feedback, this requires measuring who may submit, how often the team receives feedback, and which agents can act on it.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Wrong but Useful: Trajectory Value Beyond Answer Correctness in Multi-Agent Messages

A solution can end with a wrong answer and still help another solver. In multi-agent reasoning, evaluating only a message's proposed answer can therefore miss its contribution to the receiver. We measure this contribution as trajectory value: the change in a fixed integrator's probability of answering correctly when a cached message is present rather than removed. Controlled replay across five benchmarks and two model families separates message effects from identical-input variation. The strongest evidence is for Gemma: in a pre-registered fresh-call re-test, 34 of 73 selected wrong-answer messages pass individual confirmation, exceeding control-calibrated upper bounds on expected false confirmations of 11.4--20.8. The finding is benchmark-dependent and the conservative criterion no longer passes without SciBench. A blinded two-author audit supports the selected answer labels, while neutral replacements show that the helpful effect is not explained solely by message length and position. On held-out replay blocks of the same problems, a message-specific removal rule improves accuracy over the strongest tested correctness-only rule by 1.61 percentage points [1.01, 2.25]. Post hoc analysis localizes most of this gap to pools containing no correct proposal. Evidence for gpt-oss is weaker, and the tested predictors do not establish a practical way to identify useful errors in advance. The results support measuring answer correctness and receiver benefit separately, with value understood as conditional on the message pool, receiver and generation format.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

LAM: Efficient Lossy Agent Memory Framework With A Retrieval-Score Error Bound

Agent memory grows as agents read inputs, reason, and call tools. Longer histories increase inference cost and eventually exceed the context window. LLM-based summarization reduces this history but adds latency and provides no explicit bound on information loss. We propose LAM, a Lossy Agent Memory system with three components: a deterministic deduplication rule with a substitution bound on retrieval scores - a bound on score perturbation, not a certificate of unchanged ranking; a memory manager that preserves the cached prefix and overlaps compaction with inference; and a performance model that estimates compaction costs before deployment. On 600 agent trajectories, LAM removes 22.47% of observation tokens while retaining 99.984% of the measured gold-patch evidence. At a fixed deletion set, the performance model predicts a 71.4x-91.6x end-to-end speedup from removing records before prefill instead of deleting them from a prefilled context. That benefit comes from the schedule rather than the rule and applies to any prefix-preserving test.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Measure Before You Manage: Evaluating Agent Working Memory in Coding Agents

Agent working memory is heterogeneous. Objects such as instructions, artifacts, tool outputs, and agent-generated state play different semantic roles and exhibit different size, retention, and representation profiles. Recent work has begun to explore memory-management mechanisms that account for such heterogeneity. This work focuses on semantic heterogeneity and studies how it should shape the management and evaluation of working memory in coding agents. Across 55 archived coding-agent trajectories, we find that semantically different working-memory objects exhibit distinct retention and compression behavior. This heterogeneity motivates semantically informed memory management. We study two semantically informed strategies: an object-aware compression policy and a retrieval-based policy. Their evaluation shows that calibration gains may not transfer to held-out tasks, and that equal token budgets do not imply equal delivered context or management cost. A real-system replay further exposes serving limits that nominal budgets alone do not capture. Together, these results show why semantic structure matters for agent working memory and why evaluating memory-management strategies requires more than a nominal token budget. We organize these lessons into four levels: stored state, delivered context, management work, and task or process outcome.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

What Confidence Routing Is Actually Doing: Auditing Routing, Calibration, and Commitment in Multi-Agent Deliberation

A common multi-agent design asks agents to report confidence and lets the highest-scoring agent speak next, implicitly using one scalar both to route the conversation and to estimate uncertainty. We audit this confidence-routed broadcast protocol by separating three trace-level questions: whether it selects the right candidate (routing), whether reported confidence behaves like a probability (calibration), and whether the selected agent publicly states the answer that won the turn (commitment). Our primary study covers 4,181 gpt-oss-120b olympiad-math traces; we repeat the audit on a 2-by-2 actor-by-benchmark grid that adds gemma-4-31B-it and a biology multiple-choice benchmark. In the primary cell, confidence discriminates correct from wrong candidates (AUROC 0.72) but is strongly overconfident (79% mean stated confidence versus 52% accuracy). A cross-fitted, tier-stratified isotonic procedure reduces Expected Calibration Error from 0.278 to 0.008 on held-out candidates, but it does not recover missing discrimination: raw AUROC is only 0.537 and 0.440 in the two Gemma cells. Routing is likewise setting-dependent. Fixed routers differ by at most 1.1 percentage points on gpt-oss/math, whereas raw-confidence argmax performs 5.6 and 11.2 points below random-valid selection in the Gemma cells. Commitment is distinct again: in the primary cell, poll and spoken answers diverge in 20.4% of valid pairs, 62.4% of those revisions are fresh generations, and the unconditional correctness shift is -1.7 points; the other three cells instead range from +0.9 to +12.2 points. The transferable lesson is procedural: routing discrimination, probability calibration, and public commitment must be measured separately before raw confidence is used for deployment decisions.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Can Predict Failure Risk, But Struggle to Predict Which Collaboration Protocol Pays Off: Cost-Aware Protocol Routing Across Reasoning Tasks

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost. We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting: direct solving (Baseline), iterative self-correction (Single), planner-executor-reviewer collaboration (PER), and multi-agent deliberation (Broadcast). The primary benchmark comprises 4,181 competition-level math problems; paired robustness checks cover four benchmarks spanning competition math, biology, and broader science with two solver families. Across fixed policies, trained routers, and frozen LLM routers, conservative policies under-escalate, whereas higher-solve frozen routers often over-escalate. A post-answer, pre-collaboration gpt-oss-120b probe ranks Baseline failures with 0.8847 AUROC (4,151 parseable cases; 95% CI [0.8732, 0.8955]). The same score remains informative for predicting whether any collaboration helps (0.7683 AUPRC), but is much weaker for identifying PER- or Broadcast-specific value (0.1674 and 0.1041 AUPRC). Separately, the pre-answer self-confidence gate reaches 78.0% solve at 45K tokens, compared with 73.8% at 71.3K for a frozen gpt-oss-120b router and 92.4% for a retrospective fixed-order oracle. Across 10 paired model-condition settings, the oracle adds 23.2-58.3 points of retrospective coverage over Baseline, but protocol profiles vary by task. In the six settings with held-out router evaluations, oracle gaps remain 18.5-28.9 points. Confidence can therefore support initial escalation, while protocol-specific cost-aware routing remains unresolved.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Precise but Uncoupled: Reviewer Precision Does Not Guarantee Critique Uptake in Multi-Agent Math Reasoning

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

BioTrove: A Large Curated Image Dataset Enabling AI for Biodiversity

We introduce BioTrove, the largest publicly accessible dataset designed to advance AI applications in biodiversity. Curated from the iNaturalist platform and vetted to include only research-grade data, BioTrove contains 161.9 million images, offering unprecedented scale and diversity from three primary kingdoms: Animalia ("animals"), Fungi ("fungi"), and Plantae ("plants"), spanning approximately 366.6K species. Each image is annotated with scientific names, taxonomic hierarchies, and common names, providing rich metadata to support accurate AI model development across diverse species and ecosystems. We demonstrate the value of BioTrove by releasing a suite of CLIP models trained using a subset of 40 million captioned images, known as BioTrove-Train. This subset focuses on seven categories within the dataset that are underrepresented in standard image recognition models, selected for their critical role in biodiversity and agriculture: Aves ("birds"), Arachnida ("spiders/ticks/mites"), Insecta ("insects"), Plantae ("plants"), Fungi ("fungi"), Mollusca ("snails"), and Reptilia ("snakes/lizards"). To support rigorous assessment, we introduce several new benchmarks and report model accuracy for zero-shot learning across life stages, rare species, confounding species, and multiple taxonomic levels. We anticipate that BioTrove will spur the development of AI models capable of supporting digital tools for pest control, crop monitoring, biodiversity assessment, and environmental conservation. These advancements are crucial for ensuring food security, preserving ecosystems, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. BioTrove is publicly available, easily accessible, and ready for immediate use.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

Neural PDE Solvers for Irregular Domains

Neural network-based approaches for solving partial differential equations (PDEs) have recently received special attention. However, the large majority of neural PDE solvers only apply to rectilinear domains, and do not systematically address the imposition of Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions over irregular domain boundaries. In this paper, we present a framework to neurally solve partial differential equations over domains with irregularly shaped (non-rectilinear) geometric boundaries. Our network takes in the shape of the domain as an input (represented using an unstructured point cloud, or any other parametric representation such as Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines) and is able to generalize to novel (unseen) irregular domains; the key technical ingredient to realizing this model is a novel approach for identifying the interior and exterior of the computational grid in a differentiable manner. We also perform a careful error analysis which reveals theoretical insights into several sources of error incurred in the model-building process. Finally, we showcase a wide variety of applications, along with favorable comparisons with ground truth solutions.

cs.LG↗