跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.09701 · v1

Where Should Learning Live? Regret Analysis for Text, Parameter, and Joint Adaptation

首次提交 2026-11-07 00:46
版本更新 2026-11-07 00:46
雷达观测 2026-11-09 13:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Language-model systems can select prompts and parameter adapters repeatedly during deployment, using feedback to guide later choices. Earlier choices may change the context or environment inherited by later configurations. We study selection among preconstructed candidates and compare cumulative loss with the best fixed prompt--parameter pair used from the beginning. This excess loss separates into three terms: selection regret within the available family, the gap from restricting that family, and the benefit or harm of the actual deployment history. Selection is evaluated using the history each candidate would have produced if used throughout, which separates candidate quality from the effects of switching. When loss functions are fixed independently of selector randomness, past choices affect loss for only a bounded number of rounds, and every candidate's own-history loss is revealed, limiting switches yields sublinear expected regret within the selected family. We also quantify the costs and additional assumptions of independent probing and deployment-only feedback. Controlled experiments show that fewer switches can either lower or raise deployed loss, depending on whether inherited histories are harmful or helpful. With Qwen3.5-9B on Spider, text-only selection has lower within-family regret than joint selection, yet produces more failures because its candidate family excludes stronger configurations.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-07 00:46 · 最新观测版本

Where Should Learning Live? Regret Analysis for Text, Parameter, and Joint Adaptation

Language-model systems can select prompts and parameter adapters repeatedly during deployment, using feedback to guide later choices. Earlier choices may change the context or environment inherited by later configurations. We study selection among preconstructed candidates and compare cumulative loss with the best fixed prompt--parameter pair used from the beginning. This excess loss separates into three terms: selection regret within the available family, the gap from restricting that family, and the benefit or harm of the actual deployment history. Selection is evaluated using the history each candidate would have produced if used throughout, which separates candidate quality from the effects of switching. When loss functions are fixed independently of selector randomness, past choices affect loss for only a bounded number of rounds, and every candidate's own-history loss is revealed, limiting switches yields sublinear expected regret within the selected family. We also quantify the costs and additional assumptions of independent probing and deployment-only feedback. Controlled experiments show that fewer switches can either lower or raise deployed loss, depending on whether inherited histories are harmful or helpful. With Qwen3.5-9B on Spider, text-only selection has lower within-family regret than joint selection, yet produces more failures because its candidate family excludes stronger configurations.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗