Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Guangzhe Zhang

Publications and source records attributed to Guangzhe Zhang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Completed Pairs Hide Capped Failures: A ReVerPi Case Study of Selective Context Projection

Context projection replaces older tool observations with compact, addressable excerpts, reducing repeated input while potentially adding evidence-retrieval turns. We study this trade-off in ReVerPi, a Pi extension with archived observations and matched full/projected continuations. In an 86-run source-reading campaign with 641 model requests, the 15 completed pairs show identical success: 12/15 per arm. Twelve further boundary runs stop, with the runner suppressing the companion whenever the first arm fails to complete. Restoring all 27 boundary runs bounds projected-minus-full success between $-$9 and +1 tasks. One omitted, selector-chosen projected continuation successfully retrieves archive text yet exhausts twelve requests; its full counterpart answers in three. The eleven jointly correct pairs form a fully observed success stratum within this recorded frame: projection reduces aggregate logical tokens by 25%, while increasing the median pair's tokens by 29% and total suffix requests from 35 to 55. Separating fitting from evaluation changes the selector's apparent tie: outside its four fitting pairs, it incurs one extra failure and 8.6% more logical tokens over thirteen comparable runs. This methodological case study connects stopping rules, known bounded failures, unexecuted companions, and resource aggregation. Its findings concern the recorded campaign, rather than population noninferiority or superiority over unrestricted Pi. Evaluations should retain every intervention boundary, execute both allocated arms independently of the first arm's completion, and report completion alongside interaction and token expenditure.

cs.AI↗

Correct Now, Insufficient Later: Auditing Update Sufficiency in Context Compression

A memory can answer a current query correctly while discarding distinctions required by a later update. We investigate this failure with a paired-history audit: two histories have the same current answer, receive a shared future update, and require different subsequent answers. A pilot evaluates 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms, 12 memory conditions, two repeats, and two model backends. A deterministic frontier selector obtains strict reveal accuracy of 96/96 on DeepSeek and 82/96 on GLM; a structured writer obtains 62 successes with one unresolved outcome and 56/96. The configured four-outcome joint contrast has finite-sample identification intervals of [0.521, 0.542] and [0.292, 0.313], not confidence intervals. A record-level audit distinguishes retained-state adequacy, response delivery, and answer-schema compliance without changing those original scores. It finds 26 and 25 well-formed but semantically wrong structured reveal memories, while all 14 GLM frontier reveal failures contain correct values in the wrong wrapper. Tombstone removal produces 16/16 exact replay failures in the targeted mechanism. Identifier renaming then exposes a separate flaw: original frontier late-reference adequacy falls from 8/8 to 94/320 transformed instances. We provide and test a label-equivariant repair, but it preserves only 2/8 original late-reference answers: eliminating a naming shortcut does not solve unknown future relevance. These results support a scoped evaluation methodology and reproducible failure analysis, not general superiority of the repaired algorithm. Paid pilot evidence, retrospective diagnostics, and new offline tests are reported separately; no independent held-out or natural-task validation is claimed.

cs.LG↗