Anuncio

SRExpert

Deja de saltar entre 6 herramientas de Kubernetes.

Monitoreo, alertas, seguridad, despliegues Helm y operaciones con IA en una sola plataforma.

Probar 30 días gratis

Empresa

Anthropic

1118documentos

103últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

XStack: A Benchmark for ML Repo Migration

ML code should run where researchers choose, not where it was first written. Today, machine learning code mainly lives in two ecosystems, PyTorch on NVIDIA GPUs and JAX on Google TPUs. Migrating repositories between them means building and testing across frameworks and hardware. This migration is (1) a practical need, since it unlocks different hardware for researchers, and (2) a natural benchmark: it involves different frameworks and hardware, covers whole repositories, and is long-horizon and challenging. We introduce XStack, a benchmark that evaluates agents on migrating ML repositories between these two ecosystems. Each agent receives a PyTorch repository and a clean TPU machine and must deliver a JAX repository. Its output passes if it meets our grading criteria, based on the source repository's published result, authenticated and calibrated by us. Migration by agents remains unreliable: Claude Opus 5 passes 75%, GPT-5.6-sol 45%, and every other agent at most 40%. XStack is a step toward freeing ML code from its ecosystem. We release XStack to make progress toward reliable migration across frameworks and hardware measurable.

en
arXiv AI Papers

FedReason: Large Language Models as Weight-Space Meta-Aggregators for Heterogeneous Federated Learning

Federated learning servers combine client models with a fixed aggregation rule, and each rule in common use is designed for one kind of heterogeneity. We study whether a large language model (LLM) that inspects the client models can choose the rule itself, without any training on the server. In FedReason, the LLM is called every ten rounds. It analyses the weights by running code in a restricted server-side sandbox, sees only the printed results, may score a few candidates on a 500-image proxy set, and submits a short Python aggregation program. The server applies the program until the next call and falls back to FedAvg whenever its output is invalid. Full weight tensors never leave the server. We evaluated FedReason with Claude Opus 5.5 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 with ResNet-18 under Dirichlet label skew, width-heterogeneous sub-models and Byzantine clients, in 168 runs against 14 baselines. Across 12 paired label-skew runs it beat FedAvg by 1.26 percentage points on average (10 wins), and a control that spends the same per-round proxy budget on choosing among standard rules by 1.08 points. It was the strongest server-side rule on CIFAR-100 but did not beat SCAFFOLD, which changes client training. With three of ten clients malicious, it excluded all sign-flipping clients from the first round and stayed about one point below FLTrust without training a root model. Without proxy feedback, accuracy fell from 73.8% to 38.8% in one seed. A 60-round run cost 0.79 USD in API fees on average.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Towards Foundation Decision Models: Drex

Autoregressive approaches with large language models, such as long chain-of-thought reasoning, have become the default for new AI applications because they reach higher accuracy on a wide range of tasks. In production, however, they give inconsistent answers, require parsing of outputs, and add cost and latency. Decision models address this: given a question and a set of options supplied by the user, they return a probability distribution over the options without autoregressive decoding. We present Drex, a family of four open decision models with 8B (DLM), 9B (v1.5), 35B with 3B active (v2.0), and 27B (Max) parameters. Each request consists of a state (a document, record, or agent context, optionally with images) and questions about it, each asking for a choice among options, a yes/no judgment, or a score on an ordered scale. Training combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning from adjusted feedback (RLAF), plus vision tuning for Max. Ablations show that RLAF improves accuracy and that consistency losses improve robustness to option order. On Decision Index 0.4.1, Max sets a new state of the art among the decision models we compare (67.52 on the public suite vs. 60.70 for Jev 1.14.0). On Decision Bench v4, it is statistically tied with d3-turbo and GPT-6 Sol and trails Claude Opus 5.5 by 1.6 points, and it has the highest accuracy among decision models on DecideBench. Max answers a typical request in 183 ms, against about 2.0 s for GPT-6 Sol and 3.5 s for Claude Opus 5.5, and its outputs are stable under option reordering. All four models are open source: https://github.com/nace-ai/drex-decision-models

en
arXiv AI Papers

EnvOpt: Automated Optimization for Agent Environments

An LLM agent's cost and success depend on its model, its harness, and its environment. In addition to the widely studied directions of parameter tuning and harness optimization, we propose the third direction: optimization over stationary environments. Agents are often deployed in rich environments shared by many tasks, such as a company's Slack workspace or a complex collection of data sources, documents or tickets. We call these environments stationary environments. We introduce EnvOpt, a method for automated end-to-end optimization of stationary environments for any given model and harness, using real or synthetic tasks without needing any graders or reference answers. On AutomationBench, EnvOpt reduces the cost of Claude Haiku 4.5 by 72.7% and raises its pass rate by 14.34%. The same environment transfers to Opus 5, cutting its cost by 68.1% with a 1.34% gain. Added on top of Meta-Harness's optimized harness for Haiku 4.5, it lowers cost by a further 83.4% and adds 11.17% accuracy over Meta-Harness alone. Across 5 benchmarks, EnvOpt significantly reduces the cost of agents while improving or maintaining pass rate, and is transferable to different models and different harnesses. We also discuss common successful and rejected environment optimization strategies during automated optimization. More broadly, our results show that how information is represented to an agent shapes both its cost and its success, making the environment worth optimizing in addition to the parameters and the harness.

en
arXiv AI Papers

How Should Agents See Code? Rethinking Code Representations for Agentic Software Engineering

LLM agents are increasingly used for repository-level software engineering tasks. However, most agents still access repositories through raw files, lexical search, and shell commands, treating code primarily as text. This paper investigates map-based code-representation workflows as a design variable in agentic software engineering, examining how different repository views change agents' retrieval behavior, task success, token use, and latency. In this paper, we study five code-representation workflows: abstract syntax trees, call graphs, module dependencies, documentation-enriched search, and a hybrid workflow that combines them. Each workflow exposes a repository map that the agent can query during a task. We evaluate Claude Code with Haiku 4.5 against a raw-tool baseline on four repository-level tasks: fault localization with LinuxFLBench, repository-level code generation and repair with SWE-bench Pro, test generation with SWT-bench, and security patching with SecBench. The results show that representation workflows are most useful as token-saving tools when localization is the bottleneck, while their success gains narrow when the decisive step is patch or test authoring. On LinuxFLBench, all five workflows improve recall@10 over the baseline (0.757-0.829 vs. 0.717) and reduce token usage by 25-39%. On SWE-bench Pro, resolution remains close to the baseline (44.3-50.6% vs. 49.0%) while token usage drops by 17-26%. On SecBench, Callgraph has the highest patch-resolution rate in this sample (34.3% vs. 28.9%) and uses fewer tokens, but all workflows increase latency. On SWT-bench, Hybrid and Docs have the highest reproducing-test rates in this sample (47.8% and 47.2% vs. 44.7%), but all workflows use more tokens and take longer. Overall, map-based workflows change both what the agent inspects and how much it spends, but their benefits are task-dependent rather than universal.

en