overfeed.news
Anuncio

Privum

Construimos, protegemos y operamos tu infraestructura digital.

Software, sistemas de IA, pruebas de penetración y nube segura para empresas.

Hablar con Privum

Empresa

OpenAI

2606documentos

80últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

Attention Function as an Intrinsic Inductive Bias: How Models' Behavior Diverges in Novel Contexts

Developmental psychology holds that certain priors are given to infants prior to experience rather than induced from data, and that the influence of such priors is suppressed under strong, well-constrained conditions but reasserts itself under weak ones. We ask whether an analogous principle holds for the Transformer: can the activation function given to attention heads serve as an intrinsic inductive bias? We propose Mixture of Function Attention (MoFA), a parameter-free modification to multi-head attention that fixes a ratio of softmax and sigmoid heads before training. Across five ratios, a 124M-parameter GPT-2 model, and five seeds, we find that this given ratio has little effect in-distribution -- differences between ratios are statistically negligible for moderate mixtures and remain small even at the extremes -- but its influence re-emerges sharply under zero-shot distribution shift across 15 out-of-distribution domains. Perplexity gaps between ratios widen by more than an order of magnitude on several domains, and the best-performing ratio tracks a single axis of domain structure, separating short, informal text (softmax-favoring) from technical, long-form text (sigmoid-favoring), that explains 78.3% of the variance in domain response. This reorganization is visible at the head level: sigmoid heads show an accelerating drop in attention entropy as their ratio increases, while softmax heads respond more modestly, yielding a consistent division of labor between the two head types. Our results suggest that activation choice functions as a given prior whose influence is masked in-distribution and re-emerges out-of-distribution.

en
arXiv AI Papers

DAGent: Evaluate-then-Grow Planning for Deep Research Agents

Deep research tasks require agents to navigate large knowledge spaces, synthesize evidence across many sources, and adapt their plans as findings emerge. Directed acyclic graph (DAG)-based multi-agent systems suit this setting because they support parallel execution and isolate each sub-task within a focused dependency context. Yet existing DAG-based agents instantiate a task-level plan before execution and repair the graph only after failures or missing evidence are observed. This Plan-then-Patch strategy is brittle for deep research: the system commits most strongly when its evidence is weakest, and later revisions waste computation on branches that should not have been planned. We propose DAGent, a DAG-based multi-agent framework with Evaluate-then-Grow incremental planning: an Orchestrator grows the task graph one batch at a time, conditioning each expansion on confidence and uncertainty signals from completed nodes. A hierarchical context layer propagates compact QueryDocs by default while preserving full execution traces for on-demand recall. The recorded DAG topology admits structural RL signals that outcome-only recipes cannot define; DAGRPO, a GRPO adaptation, injects topology-conditioned credit on Executor rollouts and a structural compliance regularization on Orchestrator plans. Across BrowseComp-Plus, GAIA, and xbench-DeepSearch, DAGent surpasses the strongest open-source baseline by 5.3 / 5.8 / 2.0 points at the Qwen3-235B-A22B scale, and the lead replicates across four open-source backbones and extends to GPT-5 at 327K context. At the Qwen3-8B scale, DAGRPO improves over a same-budget outcome-only GRPO baseline by 3.0 average Pass@1 points. A same-architecture comparison shows that evidence-conditioned planning reaches higher accuracy at lower per-task token, tool-call, and step footprints than its Plan-then-Patch counterpart. Code: https://github.com/hanwenliu6825/DAGent

en
arXiv AI Papers

BELIEFRAG: Making Adaptive RAG State-Aware under Evolving Evidence

Adaptive RAG uses signals such as confidence, relevance, support, and retrieval quality to decide when to search or correct evidence. In multi-step retrieval, however, these local signals must be combined into a persistent view of what the current evidence supports, what remains missing, and which action should follow. Existing methods often use such signals as separate triggers, making it difficult to preserve a coherent evidence state across a trajectory; we call this problem evidence-state fragmentation. We introduce BELIEFRAG, a closed-loop controller that updates an explicit state over sufficiency, reliability, conflict, uncertainty, evidence gaps, and acquisition cost, then chooses among retrieval, query rewriting, verification, answering, stopping, and abstention. Across six QA benchmarks with gpt-oss-120b, BELIEFRAG reaches mean token F1 0.572 with 3.89k tokens per question, outperforming fixed iterative retrieval (0.555 F1) while using 39% fewer tokens. The same quality-cost pattern transfers to Qwen3-32B, where BELIEFRAG reaches 0.552 F1 versus 0.523 for iterative retrieval while using 35% fewer tokens. Analysis shows that the main gains come from corrective re-retrieval rather than pruning alone, while several belief dimensions are redundant and calibrated answerability plays the strongest operational role. Calibration improves threshold stability across related evidence sources, although source shift can still invalidate the same decision signal.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Thinking Before Thinking: Scaling Agentic Inference Through Meta-Reasoning

As agents take on longer and more complex problems, controlling the execution becomes a task in its own right. Each step in the run brings new control choices, like which partial work to build on, whether to start fresh, or when to stop. We introduce agentic meta-reasoning, an inference-time harness that makes these choices an explicit and structured reasoning process. Workers carry out the task-level computation, while a controller consolidates what the run has established, explores next options, assesses what each option is worth under the remaining budget, and dispatches the chosen work with context drawn from persistent memory. Between decisions the controller carries only a compact account of the run rather than replaying its full history. Our baselines span production coding agents and research harnesses, together with a Direct Control Agent using the same workers and compute budget allowance. On ProgramBench, which tests long-horizon agentic capability through program reconstruction, meta-reasoning achieves 71.5% with GPT-5.5 against 58.0% for Codex; with Opus 4.8 it achieves 67.2% against 65.5% for Claude Code. On the other benchmarks, spanning abstract reasoning, multi-domain long-horizon reasoning, and proof generation, it gains between 3.6 and 4.2 points over direct control, averaged across three frontier models. It keeps improving over the tested budget ranges where direct control plateaus, though its overhead can hurt at small budgets. Artifact-graph analysis reveals more reuse of earlier work, higher coverage of correct solutions in most settings, and nonuniform gains in final selection. These results indicate that spending computation on structured control becomes more important as agents scale to longer runs.

en