arXiv subjects

Asa Shepard

Publications and source records attributed to Asa Shepard.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What It Costs to Compose, Rebuild, and Correct Precomputed Memory

Language models can answer from precomputed memory, a model's saved reading of a body of material, reused across requests instead of read again at each. This paper maps where that practice preserves correctness and the conditions under which it fails. Across experiments on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct using both saved key-value caches and trained compressions of them, precomputed memory degrades when assembled from separately prepared parts, stays current only through rebuilds costing a large fraction of full preparation in our measurements, and ignores corrections served beside it conditional on phrasing. If precomputed memories can be served alongside one another, be cost-efficiently rebuilt, and be superseded by new information arriving in real-time, they can serve as a way to avoid re-feeding context to a model over repeated queries. The implication of our results for a deployed system that deals with a variety of queries is that precomputed memories are best rebuilt on the cadence at which new information changes what the memory was originally computed from. Both warm-rebuilding trained compressions of key-value caches and serving specifically-phrased updates beside a memory, as pasted text or injected cache state, show particular promise for keeping precomputed memories current, the latter as an interim measure between rebuilds, and we measure the cost and name the remaining questions associated with each.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Learned, Then Lost: A Measured Single-Example Counterfactual in Pre-training

A single training example's contribution to a finished model is normally estimated rather than measured, because measuring it takes two expensive full pre-training runs that differ in one row of one batch. We ran that counterfactual 24 times at a small scale. We trained 32 GPT-2 models at 124M parameters from scratch on OpenWebText, over four conditions and eight seeds. At step 200 of 9,536, at peak learning rate, we replaced one row of a 256-row batch with a fixed context injection carrying a 194-token passage. The three injected conditions are: 1. fluent prose with a corpus-attested subject, 2. fluent prose with a fabricated subject matched to it within 0.14% on full-batch gradient delta, and 3. random keyboard characters. The fourth condition is an uninjected twin. The passage is learned from one exposure and then decays. Fifty steps after injection, the arm that saw a passage predicts it better than the arm that did not by 0.039 and 0.044 nats of cross-entropy on the passage, at eight of eight seeds with p < 0.0001. At the final step we do not detect that difference for either passage, at p = 0.25 and p = 0.71, against minimum detectable effects of 0.025 and 0.079 nats, nor between the two passages, at p = 0.54. Every geometric measure we report is taken after that decay. Our pre-registered contrast on interpolation loss barrier is +0.0068 with p = 0.509, against a minimum detectable effect of 0.032 barrier units. Held-out cross-entropy is -0.00044 with p = 0.310. Per-layer centered kernel alignment does not detectably separate any condition at any layer. Weight displacement reaches 44.1% of the seed-to-seed Euclidean distance and is 92% settled by the midpoint of training, while the barrier reaches 3.0% of the seed-to-seed barrier. Those two figures sit roughly 15 times apart, and that is a lower bound. The injection relocates the model within its basin without moving it out.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Probe-and-Refine Tuning of Repository Guidance for Coding Agents

LLM-based coding agents need higher-level operational knowledge about a repository (which files house which subsystems, how to run the test suite, which workflows have historically led to wrong fixes) that does not exist in the code itself. Engineers typically maintain AGENTS.md files to supply this context as instructions for coding agents, but whether they help is contested: recent studies disagree on whether LLM-generated guidance improves or harms agent performance. In this paper we show that how the guidance is produced is the decisive variable, and introduce probe-and-refine tuning: a procedure that uses synthetic bug-fix probes to iteratively diagnose and patch a repository's guidance file through single-shot LLM calls, with no agent loop or tool use during tuning. On SWE-bench Verified across four independent trials with Qwen3.5-35B-A3B at 200 steps, probe-and-refine achieves 33.0% mean resolve rate vs. 28.3% for the static knowledge base used to initialize it and 25.5% for an unguided baseline (p < 0.001 for both probe-and-refine contrasts). The improvement comes from coverage rather than precision: refined guidance produces evaluable patches for 14.5 percentage points (pp) more instances while per-patch precision remains statistically constant (~59%, p = 0.119), showing that improved guidance helps agents reach the correct file rather than improving the quality of the changes they make. Further, a step-budget experiment shows that guidance is what lets the agent use a larger step budget productively, and a cross-model experiment with NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B finds that the tuning loop degrades when the model cannot generate sufficiently diagnostic output, though per-patch precision remains constant even then.

cs.SE↗