跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.14671 · v1

Where Should the Code Go? Locating Foundation-Model Errors in Bitemporal Inventory Simulation

首次提交 2026-11-11 03:27
版本更新 2026-11-11 03:27
雷达观测 2026-11-13 10:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Operational reports carry two clocks: when an event happened and when its report arrived; later reports can revise earlier ones. A foundation-model component that maintains the state supported by the reports visible at a cutoff, then rolls a supplied scenario forward, can be helped by exact code before it, after it or inside the call, or asked to reason harder. We ask which remedy removes which error, for which models, on an exactly solvable lost-sales inventory environment: 36,672 independently rescored requests over twelve configurations of closed and open-weight models, with a forced-answer-call interface as a control and protocols frozen before the calls. Weak models fail in separable ways. Canonical input removes report-selection error, exact continuation removes rollout error, neither repairs the other, and which error dominates differs by model; strong models are at ceiling on raw reports. Asking for more reasoning is no substitute and can depend on the interface: under a forced answer call high effort collapses GPT-5.4 mini and DeepSeek V4 Pro, which gain or hold under automatic choice; on its provider the forced call disables reasoning for DeepSeek V4 Flash; and at high effort gpt-oss exhausts its output budget. The contribution is a controlled component diagnostic, released with every request, and evidence that for some model and provider pairs the tool-calling interface confounds reasoning evaluation.

作者备注:22 pages. Accepted as a poster at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Foundation Models for Temporal Systems (FMTS). Code and data: https://github.com/durga-sandeep/where-should-the-code-go

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

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、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 · 2026-11-11 03:27 · 最新观测版本

Where Should the Code Go? Locating Foundation-Model Errors in Bitemporal Inventory Simulation

Operational reports carry two clocks: when an event happened and when its report arrived; later reports can revise earlier ones. A foundation-model component that maintains the state supported by the reports visible at a cutoff, then rolls a supplied scenario forward, can be helped by exact code before it, after it or inside the call, or asked to reason harder. We ask which remedy removes which error, for which models, on an exactly solvable lost-sales inventory environment: 36,672 independently rescored requests over twelve configurations of closed and open-weight models, with a forced-answer-call interface as a control and protocols frozen before the calls. Weak models fail in separable ways. Canonical input removes report-selection error, exact continuation removes rollout error, neither repairs the other, and which error dominates differs by model; strong models are at ceiling on raw reports. Asking for more reasoning is no substitute and can depend on the interface: under a forced answer call high effort collapses GPT-5.4 mini and DeepSeek V4 Pro, which gain or hold under automatic choice; on its provider the forced call disables reasoning for DeepSeek V4 Flash; and at high effort gpt-oss exhausts its output budget. The contribution is a controlled component diagnostic, released with every request, and evidence that for some model and provider pairs the tool-calling interface confounds reasoning evaluation.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗