Task-Level

Multi-agent systems split a task across a tree of agents and justify the split with folklore: smaller contexts, cleaner separation, parallelism. We ask what the split does to how much of what the leaves discover reaches the root. Model a decomposition as a tree in which an agent handed $b$ items keeps any one with probability $r(b)$. If $r(b)=1/b$, every tree delivers exactly one finding, for every task size and every shape; we verify this to $2.4 \times 10^{-15}$ on 20,000 random irregular trees. If $r(b)=Cb^{-δ}$, a depth-$k$ tree over $N$ findings yields $C^k N^{1-δ}$: task size and architecture separate, and architecture contributes only $C \le 1$ per level, so flat is optimal for yield and no arrangement of agents escapes the exponent $δ$. On 600 production deep-research traces $δ= 0.34$ [0.30, 0.38], by three identifications that do not share a failure mode. At a hop where item boundaries come from the tool rather than a text heuristic, and where $b=1$ occurs 550 times, $C = 0.571$ [0.527, 0.615] is observed rather than extrapolated, over 16,082 hops. A tier also costs alignment: on 1,012 annotated multi-agent traces one brief in sixteen goes off-target, giving $μ= 0.939$ and a per-tier penalty $Cμ= 0.536$. Depth is bought on two other axes. The root context is the only state that persists and the only one that cannot cheaply forget, and depth cuts its exposure from $N$ items to $N^{1/k}$. Depth is also cheaper: production flat agents bill as $N^{1.39}$, not the $N^2$ an append-only context predicts, and at equal spend two tiers overtake flat at 403 findings. Across every parameter we measured the model says 0.7% to 11.3% of production sessions are worth delegating, against 7.8% that do. A hazard model on 743,819 production tool calls finds that delegation does not respond to a filling context and is instead an opening move.

Embedding an intelligent agent in an existing application creates a persistent coordination problem: users can revise goals and manipulate shared objects while delegated execution continues. We argue that dependable integration requires an explicit correspondence between task-level interaction and application behavior. We introduce Agent-Integrated Software (AIS) as a software pattern combining a conventional core, direct interaction, and a built-in agent, and Intent-Level Interaction Abstraction (IIA) as the task semantics through which users inspect and control delegated work. An open transition-system model relates AIS execution to IIA states and events. Interaction contracts constrain this relation through task bindings, role-specific authority, control transitions, and outcome evidence; continuous assurance maintains scoped claims as their dependencies change. A compact disclosure contract and conditional propositions illustrate why local component validity is insufficient and how selected admission invariants can be separated from planning. Contrasting software domains expose the framework's assumptions and limits. This perspective develops a research agenda spanning application abstraction, development support, controlled execution, quality assessment, and human supervision, with the aim of making agent integration a maintainable software engineering discipline.

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a $3.50\times$ speedup.

Compound LLM systems often solve a coordination problem by adding a higher-level LLM. The resulting meta-agent reads workers' outputs, writes the final answer, allocates later calls, and decides when to stop. It is expressive, but it also concentrates three control decisions in an opaque, order-sensitive model call. We ask whether the manager needs to be generative at all. UnitBoost replaces that model with a defined meta-level operator: a task-given unit map turns worker outputs into slot-value proposals, a constrained argmax assembles the output, and the slots left unfilled or unsupported become an explicit residual for the next round. The operator is order-free, records unit provenance, and gives a simple guarantee: without coupling constraints, unit-wise maximization under the same admission score dominates selection of any complete candidate. On three held-out benchmarks, it exceeds the best single candidate chosen with gold labels by 0.060-0.195 absolute task-score points and input-matched generative managers by 0.048-0.076. Replacing only the management step improves six compound-system configurations by 0.013-0.182. Residual-directed rounds raise FanOutQA cell F1 from 0.4778 to 0.5524; matched controls show that the true residual outperforms random targets and ordinary rereading, while a label-free supply signal flags exhaustion after one unproductive round. The same analysis measures three conditions in which no such gain is available (one indivisible unit, unavailable unit identity, and an endpoint that charges for every emitted unit) and quantifies cross-unit coupling as a repair cost. The manager gives up semantic freedom and gains order invariance, unit provenance, and testable failure conditions.

Timed Partial Orders (TPOs), originally proposed for workflows, provide an interpretable framework for robot task specification with planning algorithms based on mixed-integer linear programming (MILP). However, TPOs are limited in expressivity, capturing only partial-order events with simple timing constraints. In this paper, we introduce Conditional TPOs (cTPOs), which extend TPOs with richer relative-timing constraints and conditional event activations based on environmental conditions. We show that planning for cTPOs also reduces to an MILP problem; however, the added expressivity results in significantly larger MILPs that can become computationally intractable. To address this challenge, we propose a decomposition algorithm that partitions a cTPO into smaller sub-TPOs, yielding a sequence of smaller MILP problems. We prove that this decomposition is complete and preserves plan optimality while improving the interpretability of complex tasks. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of cTPOs as a task specification framework and the efficiency of our decomposition approach, achieving up to four orders of magnitude speedup over the monolithic MILP.

Distributed LLM-agent teams can read the latest shared facts and still act on an obsolete plan. A planner may derive an action from requirement $r_3$, another agent may commit $r_4$, and an executor may receive $r_4$ without replacing the plan derived from $r_3$. We call this \emph{stale-plan execution}: state freshness does not establish that the plan authorizing an action remains valid. We introduce PlanFence, a dependency-scoped action-validation protocol. Plans cite the exact public records they used, and an executor validates only the records that can affect the pending external action, replanning once or blocking when validation is incomplete. In 30 controlled live workflows with a post-plan revision, a freshness-only executor acts on the obsolete plan in every task, whereas PlanFence completes all tasks without an invalid action. Controlled replay reveals two conditional boundaries: proactive synchronization yields lower coordination stall at low churn, while PlanFence avoids repeated update-path coordination as churn grows and avoids validating unrelated state as the shared keyspace grows. These are controlled safety and systems-cost results, not general task-accuracy gains.

A robot's effective ``mind'' need not reside in a single policy. It can emerge when specialized components perceive, reason, predict, act, verify, and remember within a shared orchestration process. EMERGE-Policy turns this perspective into a graph-structured agentic framework that coordinates both capability invocation and information exchange. A Main Agent retains task-level state within an active context window, while role-specific Sub Agents process perception, execution monitoring, verification, and memory consolidation in isolated contexts and return structured, task-relevant evidence. Role-specific contexts control information load by exposing only decision-relevant evidence to the Main Agent, while the functional Skill interface composes heterogeneous backends as Operational, Imagination, and Evaluation Skills. Criterion-grounded verification, textual failure diagnosis, and Branch Stack recovery provide localized correction, with token-aware external memory preserving task-relevant state. Together, their closed-loop interaction realizes the system-level policy captured by the name EMERGE-Policy. Without additional fine-tuning, we achieved outstanding performance on several public benchmark that have had a wide-reaching impact, and conducted a series of real robot experiments. These system-level results suggest that through the division of different functional sub-tasks among multiple agents and their concurrent collaboration, as well as the technical paradigm where the model is regarded as a skill and called within the framework, EMERGE-Policy can extend the robust robot policies beyond isolated runs.

Implicit multimodal in-context learning compresses demonstrations into internal interventions, ranging from static task vectors to query-conditioned transformations and attention routing. Despite their common goal, these methods differ substantially in how the intervention depends on the query and where it modifies the model, leaving unclear which additional complexity is necessary for a given task. We propose the Selection--Realization Hypothesis. It views demonstrations as inducing a compact family of internal changes from which the query selects, while the model's computation constrains how the selected change can be implemented. We evaluate this account using controlled multimodal tasks in which query dependence varies without changing the underlying task primitives or prompt format. By contrasting correct demonstrations with matched counterfactuals, we measure the structure of explicit M-ICL and test whether it predicts intervention behavior. We find that the success of a static task vector is closely tied to how much of the demonstration-induced change is shared across queries. Additional intervention complexity becomes useful when explicit M-ICL contains query-specific or distributed structure that a local additive shift cannot recover. These relationships extend to natural VQA benchmarks and support cost-aware method selection without access to test performance. Our results provide a unified empirical theory of when demonstrations can be compressed into a task vector and when a more expressive intervention is warranted.

Task-arithmetic merging works until it doesn't, and the field diagnoses why by measuring interference inside the merged model. We take the most direct such measure, the exact layerwise activation cross-term of a factorial ledger, establish its causal anatomy, and then ask what it tracks. The anatomy is clean: each block mostly transports and amplifies the cross-term rather than generating it; erased, it is regenerated by the untouched marginal paths to 99% of its norm unless removed late; its output effect varies monotonically with the displacement's angle (orthogonal displacements make interference worse), and a two-assumption model derives the angle law and retro-dicts the dose curve (R^2 >= 0.99). What the measure tracks is not what the field assumes. Behavioural expert-likeness is decoupled from it across four instruments. Its cross-condition behaviour is denominator-dominated: an instruction template pins the main effect to within 1% while the absolute interaction grows 111x from two to six merged tasks, suppressing expressed interference at k=2 and amplifying it at k=6. And where merging actually collapses, the cross-term is a bystander, not the carrier: across two collapse parameterizations at two scales, even erased persistently at every position, removing it entirely repairs none of the collapse. There the output-side ratio carries no method information under a common counterfactual, while two state-space measures the field already uses rank methods correctly at both scales. All 81 predictions were frozen before their data; falsifications are reported as such. Output-side interference measurement reads the gate, the denominator, and the displacement budget, not the interference. What fails a merge is the carrier-bystander split: collapse rides in the marginal displacements while the cross-term merely accompanies it, and only state space sees the carrier.

Task arithmetic composes skills by adding weight displacements, and merged models are then judged on benchmark suites. We measure when that composition is functionally additive, and find that the answer depends as much on how the model is prompted as on which tasks are merged. Across two-dimensional composition surfaces -- five model settings from 0.5B to 8B, two families, LoRA and full fine-tuning -- pairwise non-additivity is real, seed-stable, and transfers in coarse order to unseen task pairs: all eight preregistered sign predictions held. But it is input-conditioned everywhere we measured: the same merged model that shows a six-point interaction contrast on code prompts shows none on math prompts, and wrapping the identical code prompts in the instruction template the adapters were trained on collapses the contrast twenty-fold, from +6.9 to +0.3 points -- while re-serializing them in an untrained chat template leaves it intact (+12.5), falsifying our own preregistered prediction. Execution benchmarks (pass@1) inherit the training-format wrapper's blindness. Weight-space composition therefore supports coarse, input- and format-conditioned functional statements -- not a universal merging-performance predictor, and not one that training-format evaluations can see.

Large language model-based multi-agent systems have recently shown strong potential for complex, long-horizon tasks. However, existing methods mainly rely on coarse prompt-level differentiation without parameter adaptation for diverse subtasks, resulting in insufficient inter-agent heterogeneity and limited specialized capability that bottleneck performance on tasks with complex requirements. To address this, we introduce a Task-Oriented Multi-Agent System with Mixture of Role-Subtask Experts (MoRSE) that distinguishes agents with (role, subtask)-conditional specialization at both the task structure and parameter levels. To make agents' responsibility explicit at the task structure level, we formulate a task-oriented multi-agent system that decomposes each task into a dependency-aware Directed Acyclic Graph of subtasks and assigns each agent a specific (role, subtask), introducing task-level specialization across collaborating agents. Additionally, to address the diverse role and subtask parameter adaptation demands, we propose a dynamic Mixture of (role, subtask) LoRA Experts module with a prototype-based semantic router for subtasks, augmenting agents with parameter-level specialization on a shared LLM substrate cost-effectively. Then, to co-optimize experts and router stably under sparse task rewards, we further propose a hierarchical group-relative policy optimization with two-layer credit assignment that isolates expert updates from the cross-route variance introduced by routing decisions, disentangling expert quality from routing quality. Experiments on code-generation benchmarks across three backbones demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, with improvements in both whole-task and step-wise performance, and the gains from trained specialization generalize across held-out task categories and domains.

Learned restriction maps in sheaf graph neural networks are often treated as proof that the model has discovered useful edge geometry. That conclusion does not follow from parameter movement or from a post-hoc ablation: both can show how one checkpoint is organized while leaving open whether learned transport still helps after the rest of the model adapts. We separate these claims with two estimands. Checkpoint reliance intervenes on the maps of a fixed predictor; protocol-relative replacement retrains matched families that remove map capacity, edge variation, or persistent edge assignment. A task-null theorem shows why the claims can diverge: labels identify only the transported classifier directions, leaving $d^2-d$ invisible degrees of freedom in every full $d\times d$ map. An exact frame model then gives the boundary at which reliance becomes unreplaced task value. Label-only training realizes the predicted separation, while audits of public NSD, DNSD, and Directed Sheaf Neural Network (DSNN) implementations recover both replaceable and unreplaced transport regimes on real graphs. All five DNSD benchmarks exhibit fixed-checkpoint reliance. After retraining, assignment-breaking or shared-map controls recover Full performance on four; Roman-Empire retains a $.0675$ advantage over continually resampled assignment and a $.0391$ advantage over a parameter-matched shared map across ten official splits. Thus, a learned map can govern a fitted computation without constituting indispensable edge geometry. Claims of learned transport should pair checkpoint interventions with matched retraining.

LoRA adapters provide an efficient way to specialize a pretrained model for many downstream tasks, but deploying one adapter per task requires adapter storage and task selection at inference time. Model merging addresses this issue by combining independently trained adapters into one multi-task adapter. Recent SVD-based LoRA merging methods mainly focus on constructing shared or task specific directions, while the coefficients assigned to the final directions are often directly from the original task SVD. On a fixed merged basis, inherited coefficients preserve component order with high rank correlation, yet their magnitudes differ substantially from the coefficients induced by the task updates. To address this mismatch, we propose CT-Merging, a LoRA-aware merging algorithm that estimates consensus directions from average task subspace projectors and assigns task-level RMS coefficient scales in the final update. CT-Merging uses repeated support across task SVD subspaces to construct the common basis, while reducing reliance on rank wise SVD magnitudes after direction construction. On the DC-Merge CLIP adapter benchmark, CT-Merging achieves superior average normalized accuracy compared to state-of-the-art merging methods and further improves over DC-Merge by 2.56 points on ViT-B/32 and 1.51 points on ViT-L/14 KnoTS-trained checkpoints.

When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum. We study this question on ACPBench-Hard by evaluating multiple LLM families under varying test-time reasoning budgets and applying a multidimensional item response theory model to uncover the latent competency structure underlying LLM planning. The analysis reveals two principal dimensions that shape planning performance: operational reasoning, the ability to evaluate local action applicability and immediate state transitions, and structural enumeration, the ability to reason about goal reachability and landmark structure. Operational reasoning improving under model scaling and longer reasoning traces, while structural enumeration remains comparatively insensitive. Our findings motivate competency-level evaluation of LLM planning, shifting the focus from whether models improve overall to which planning competencies improve, under what conditions, and why.

Agentic AI development today runs on token maxing: buying capability with tokens -- longer reasoning traces, more turns, wider tool payloads, bigger replayed contexts -- so tokens per task grow faster than task value. Falling per-token prices mask the pattern; total spend rises anyway. We argue the decisive lever against token maxing is the harness: the orchestration layer that assembles context, exposes tools, sequences turns, delegates work, and carries enterprise observability and governance. We isolate it with a controlled swap: 22 locked evaluation tasks, six foundation models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1, Gemini Flash 3.5, Qwen 3.6, GLM 5.1, Palmyra X6), changing only the orchestration layer -- a frozen conventional production loop versus the Writer Agent Harness. Holding models constant, the harness cuts blended cost per task 41% ($0.21->$0.12), median wall-clock 44% (48s->27s), and tokens per task 38% (14.2k->8.8k), with task-completion quality at parity (0.78->0.81, directional at this sample size). Efficiency is model-invariant -- every model gets cheaper (33-61%) -- while quality gains are capability-dependent: a model's gain correlates almost perfectly with its baseline strength (r=0.99, n=6), a phenomenon we term harness leverage. Quality per dollar rises 82%; task-completions per million tokens rise from 54.9 to 92.0. On this workload the orchestration layer moved cost per task more than the full spread of the model menu did. We formalize token economics at the orchestration layer (including effective input price under prompt caching), detail the six mechanism families behind the effect -- cache-shape discipline to failure-spend governance -- compare six widely used agent systems on the same axes, and argue the harness is the one component whose efficiency multiplies across every model an organization runs -- present and future.

LLM-based agents have shown strong potential for solving complex multi-step tasks, yet existing performance improvements often rely on either scaling to larger backbone models or task-specific fine-tuning. The former incurs substantial computational costs, while the latter typically generalizes poorly across different tasks. Although prompt-based control is training-free and broadly applicable, existing methods still leave input-output dependencies between subtasks implicit in textual trajectories, making verified intermediate results difficult to reuse. To address these limitations, we propose Atomic Task Graph (ATG), a unified control framework for planning and execution. Specifically, ATG maintains an explicit graph to expose dependencies and support reuse. During planning, it recursively decomposes a high-level task into subtasks, forming a sequence of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) whose evolution can be traced. During execution, the dependencies exposed by ATG allow independent branches to be executed in parallel, thereby improving execution efficiency. When failures are detected, ATG leverages the graph evolution history to localize the error source and repair only the affected region, preserving validated regions unchanged. Experiments show that ATG consistently outperforms strong baselines in success rate and execution efficiency across three interactive benchmarks using only 7B-8B backbones.

Large language models (LLMs) excel across a wide range of tasks, yet their instance-specific solutions often lack the structural consistency needed for reliable deployment. Workflows that encode recurring algorithmic patterns at the task level provide a principled framework, offering robustness across instance variations, interpretable traces for debugging, and reusability across problem instances. However, manually designing such workflows requires significant expertise and effort, limiting their broader application. While automatic workflow generation could address this bottleneck, existing methods either produce instance-specific solutions without learning task-level patterns, or cannot generalize beyond their training configurations. We present MetaFlow, which casts workflow generation as a meta-learning problem: given a task and an operator set, the model learns to compose solution strategies. MetaFlow trains in two stages: supervised fine-tuning on synthetic workflow data, followed by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) that uses execution feedback across problem instances in the task to improve end-to-end success. The resulting model produces effective workflows for trained tasks and exhibits strong generalization to untrained tasks and novel operator sets. Across benchmarks in question answering, code generation, and mathematical reasoning, MetaFlow achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art baselines on in-domain tasks with single inference, while demonstrating remarkable zero-shot generalization capabilities on out-of-domain tasks and operator sets.

Model merging has become a practical post-training strategy for building a single multi-task large language model (LLM) by combining multiple task-specialized models. However, most existing approaches rely on post-hoc merging, in which task-specific models are merged only once after training. This one-shot aggregation often suffers from task interference, leading to information erasure across individual tasks. In this work, we show that replacing post-hoc merging with an iterative many-shot merging protocol is effective in improving multi-task performance. Building on this insight, we propose METIS, Mitigating Erasure from Task Interference for Stable many-shot merging. METIS is a loss-aware many-shot merging method that addresses information erasure in post-hoc merging through task-wise loss-gap weighting and consensus-based masking. Notably, METIS exhibits significant performance improvement on the worst-performing task, effectively mitigating information erasure. (Project page: https://imkyungjin.github.io/METIS/)

Multi-agent systems (MAS) were expected to overcome the limitation of single-agent systems (SAS) through collaboration. However, under typicality conditions on the task's constraint graph and bounded inter-agent communication, we prove that the success probability of a MAS is closely tied to the connectivity of task constraints, where each agent has limited information-processing capacity. Specifically, the success probability decays exponentially with an information bottleneck that emerges from partitioning the task's constraint graph among agents. We define this quantity as the \emph{minimum cut cost} $C_{\min}$ of the potential constraint graph of each task. This information-theoretic bound applies to both open systems with external feedback and closed systems without. We validate our theory on both synthetic experiments and real-world empirical data from SWE-bench submissions. From our framework, effective MAS design should incorporate task-inherent constraints alongside engineering optimization, and when $\Cmin$ is high, practitioners should restructure tasks rather than simply scaling agents or communication.

Foundation models (FMs) are increasingly used as backbones for downstream tasks across language, vision, time-series, and multimodal applications. Yet existing model-serving systems deploy each customized task as an independent model instance, thereby replicating heavyweight backbones, wasting accelerator memory, and losing opportunities to amortize batching and loading costs. This paper presents FMplex, a serving system that treats FM backbones as a virtualization substrate for deployment sharing. FMplex presents each task with a virtual foundation model (vFM), a logically private FM instance backed by a shared physical FM. This abstraction lets independently customized tasks share a backbone while preserving task-specific extensions, independent lifecycles, and task-level isolation. In addition, we propose a batch-aware fair-queueing scheduler that combines weighted task-level sharing with inter- and intra-task batching across colocated tasks. We implement a FMplex-based serving stack spanning task construction, sharing-aware deployment, and runtime execution. Across 7 FM backbones (16 variants) and 92 downstream tasks, FMplex reduces latency by up to 80% over spatial partitioning and 33.3% over best-effort co-location, while hosting up to 6x more tasks at cluster scale.

Agentic AI completes tasks through iterative planning, tool use, and reasoning based on observed outcomes. Despite its popularity, its system-level behavior remains poorly understood, particularly for complex datasets and agent architectures-owing to highly non-deterministic execution, prohibitive evaluation costs, and limited visibility into proprietary models. This paper presents GAIATrace, the first token-level trace dataset of two state-of-the-art agentic systems (MiroThinker and OWL) running GAIA, a benchmark composed of a heterogeneous mix of general-purpose tasks. Unlike prior trace datasets, GAIATrace captures full reasoning tokens, task-level structures, and activities of every major participating LLMs, enabling in-depth systems research. Complementing the dataset, we present Vidur-Agent, a trace-driven simulator that can replay GAIATrace to perform reproducible, low-cost system evaluation across diverse simulated environments. Using both artifacts, we characterize how modern agentic systems handle general tasks and how various system design choices shape their behavior, yielding several unique findings.

When practitioners fine-tune LLMs on unvetted datasets, an adversary can exploit the data supply chain through task-level poisoning: inserting a small number of crafted instruction-response pairs that cause the model to embed attacker-specified entities, such as a country, in outputs for a targeted task family while behaving normally elsewhere. We introduce PoisonForge, a benchmark that parameterizes this threat along four dimensions (bias type, poisoning mode, appearance count, and target output length) and evaluates 12 open-weight models (from 2B to 32B parameters) across five families under a primarily 1% poison budget. With only 10 poisoned examples among 1,000 fine-tuning examples, 11 of 12 models exceed a 70% attack success rate (ASR) in their most vulnerable configuration. Meanwhile, unintended leakage to non-target tasks remains below 0.5%, and models perform well on standard benchmarks. We analyze in detail the factors contributing to attack success. We observe that multiple appearances of an entity increase the ASR, the optimal poisoning mode depends on the semantic structure of the target entity, and ASR drops monotonically with the task output length. A correlation analysis and risk prediction model confirm that poisoning design choices, rather than model scale, are the primary causes of attack success, and that these patterns generalize to predict attack success on new tasks. We release all configurations, pipelines, and analysis code to support reproducible comparisons.

Active sensing is traditionally defined as the expenditure of energy, typically in the form of movement, for obtaining information. Here, we propose that the combination of reliance on adaptive sensors, the linkage between movement and sensing, and task-level control inevitably gives rise to the emergence of active sensing movements. In this way, active sensing is not driven by sensory goals, such as minimizing uncertainty about the state, but rather is necessary for task-level control. This hypothesis, that active sensing subserves control, is supported by both empirical data from organisms and mathematical theory. Interestingly, active sensing behaviors often occur in discrete epochs, interspersed with goal-oriented behavior. This suggests that animals switch between two behavioral modes with distinct control policies, an explore' mode in which animals produce dynamic movements to shape sensory feedback, and an exploit' mode in which animals produce slower compensatory movements that are directly related to achieving task goals. This strategy for feedback control that relies on adaptive sensors, active sensing, and mode switching is not commonly used in engineered systems despite being ubiquitous in biology. Engineered systems comprising state-of-the-art sensors, actuators, and mechanical designs can outperform animals with respect to ``cost functions'' such as maximum force generation, precision, and speed. Nevertheless, animals routinely achieve robust, graceful behaviors that are currently unmatched by engineered systems, suggesting that current control systems are insufficient. These insights, expressed in the language of control theory, may be critical for improving robotic sensing and control.

Machine unlearning aims to remove the contribution of designated training data from a trained model while preserving performance on the remaining data. Existing work mainly focuses on single-task settings, whereas modern models often operate in multi-task setups with shared backbones, where removing supervision for one task or instance can unintentionally affect others. We introduce multi-task unlearning with two settings: full-task unlearning, which removes a target instance from all tasks, and partial-task unlearning, which removes supervision only from selected tasks. We show that shared parameters couple the forget and retain sets, causing task-level interference on non-target tasks and instance-level interference on other instances. To address this issue, we propose an interference-aware framework that combines task-aware gradient projection, which constrains updates within task-specific subspaces, with instance-level gradient orthogonalization, which reduces conflicts between forget and retain signals. Experiments on two multi-task computer vision benchmarks across five tasks show that our method achieves effective unlearning while maintaining strong generalization, reducing UIS compared with the strongest baseline by 30.3% in full-task unlearning and 52.9% in partial-task unlearning.

Some claim that AI agents will free workers from the boring parts of their jobs, yet little is known about how workers themselves identify which tasks should be automated. Prior research focuses on occupations, overlooking that workers experience varying levels of meaning across tasks within the same role. We address this gap with a task-level analysis grounded in Graeber's theory of bullshit jobs. Using ratings from 202 workers on 171 workplace tasks, we (1) validate a five-item scale of perceived bullshitness, (2) show that perceived bullshitness strongly predicts desire for AI delegation, and (3) find that such tasks are also seen as requiring less human oversight. Together, these findings suggest that tasks perceived as bullshit are natural candidates for AI delegation, aligning worker preferences with perceived feasibility.

Multi-agent systems can be extremely efficient when working concurrently and collaboratively, e.g., for delivery, surveillance, search and rescue. Coordination of such teams often involves two aspects: selecting appropriate subteams for different tasks in various areas, and coordinating agents in the subteams to execute the associated subtasks. Existing work often assumes that the tasks are static and known beforehand, where an integer program can be formulated and solved offline. However, in many applications, the team-wise tasks are generated online continually by external requests, and the amount of subtasks within each task is uncertain, e.g., the number of packages to deliver or victims to rescue. The aforementioned offline solution becomes inadequate as it would require constant re-computation for the whole team and global communication to broadcast the results. Thus, this work tackles the large-scale coordination problem under continual and uncertain temporal tasks, specified as temporal logic formulas over collaborative actions. The proposed hierarchical framework, HULK, consists of two interleaved layers: the rolling assignment of currently known tasks to subteams within a certain horizon, and the dynamic coordination within a subteam given the detected subtasks during online execution. Thus, coordination is performed hierarchically at different granularities and triggering conditions, improving computational efficiency and robustness. The method is validated rigorously over large-scale heterogeneous systems under various temporal tasks and environment uncertainties.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in teams, yet existing coordination approaches often occupy two extremes. Highly structured methods rely on fixed roles, pipelines, or task decompositions assigned a priori. In contrast, fully unstructured teams enable adaptability and exploration but suffer from inefficiencies such as error propagation, inter-agent conflicts, and wasted resources (measured in time, tokens, or file operations). We introduce Language Agent Teams for Task Evolution (LATTE), a framework for coordinating LLM teams inspired by distributed systems, where processors must operate under partial observability and communication constraints. In LATTE, a team of agents collaboratively construct and maintain a shared, evolving coordination graph which encodes sub-task dependencies, individual agent assignment, and the current state of sub-task progress. This protocol maintains consistency while empowering agents to dynamically allocate work, adapt coordination, and discover new tasks. Across multiple collaborative tasks and a variety of base models, we demonstrate how LATTE reduces token usage, wall-clock time, communication, and coordination failures (e.g. file conflicts and redundant outputs) while matching or exceeding the accuracy of standard designs including MetaGPT, decentralized teams, top-down Leader-Worker hierarchies, and static decompositions.

LLM search agents increasingly rely on tools at inference time, but their trajectories are often constrained by hard limits on both tool calls and generated tokens. Under such dual budgets, better answers require not only stronger models, but also explicit control over which search action should receive the next budget unit and when the accumulated evidence is sufficient to commit a final answer. We study this problem in multi-hop question answering (QA) and formulate it as two-stage inference-time budget control. At search time, our controller assigns each feasible action a task-level Value-of-Information (VOI) score, defined as an operational estimate of marginal task value per unit budget under the current search state and remaining dual budget, and uses this score to choose among retrieval, decomposition, and answer commitment. After search, a selective evidence-grounded finalizer compares the trajectory answer with a refined candidate and rewrites only when the residual error appears to be a low-risk answer-form error. Across four multi-hop QA benchmarks, three LLM backbones, and four budget levels, the method yields positive aggregate gains over four audited baselines under the same hard dual-budget protocol. Ablations show that search-time budget control, especially budget-dependent penalty, provides the main performance gain, while answer-time control helps mainly when the retrieval path is already adequate. These results suggest that inference-time budget control for LLM search agents should govern both how budget is spent during search and how the final answer is committed.

True zero-copy Inter-Process Communication (IPC) in publish/subscribe (pub/sub) middleware such as Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) requires subscribers to reference message objects in publisher-owned shared memory. Objects must not be reclaimed while referenced, yet must eventually be reclaimed, with correct handling of crash recovery and Transient Local QoS retention requirements. We propose ipc_shared_ptr, a pub/sub-aware smart pointer for cross-process message lifetime management. ipc_shared_ptr exploits pub/sub structural properties to specialize Birrell's reference listing, limiting global metadata updates to per-subscriber 0<->1 transitions and achieving an order-of-magnitude reduction in global communication over general-purpose distributed reference counting. We analyze the key metadata management tradeoff: scalability versus implementation simplicity. Owner-driven reclaim offers greater scalability, but concurrent membership changes and reclamation decisions produce races that widen the correctness-verification state space. Single-writer achieves structural atomicity, eliminating this complexity at the cost of a centralized bottleneck. iceoryx2 (owner-driven reclaim) and Agnocast -- a true zero-copy ROS 2 IPC middleware sharing the publisher's heap with subscribers and adopting ipc_shared_ptr with single-writer -- embody each architecture. Comparative evaluation at the scale of Autoware -- the largest open-source ROS 2 application -- confirms that single-writer achieves sufficient scalability: at 200 topics, two subscribers per topic and 100 Hz, Agnocast's E2E p99.9 is 2.9x lower than iceoryx2's, justifying implementation simplicity over owner-driven reclaim.

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) have become essential for deploying large language models, yet their static parameter allocation remains suboptimal for inputs of varying complexity. We present Flexi-LoRA, a novel framework that dynamically adjusts LoRA ranks based on input complexity during both training and inference. Through empirical analysis across question answering, mathematical reasoning, and speech tasks, we demonstrate that maintaining consistency between training and inference dynamics is important for effective adaptation, particularly for sequential reasoning tasks. Our findings reveal that input-dependent parameter allocation achieves higher performance with fewer parameters by optimally matching rank configurations to question complexity. Furthermore, task-specific dependency on rank dynamics varies, with mathematical reasoning tasks exhibiting higher dependency than QA tasks. Successful adaptation manifests not only in correctness but also in reasoning quality and instruction adherence. Flexi-LoRA consistently outperforms static LoRA while using fewer parameters, with performance gains more pronounced on tasks requiring strict reasoning chains. Our approach realizes key benefits of mixture-of-experts frameworks through a more streamlined implementation, reducing parameter redundancy while improving model capabilities. We provide comprehensive empirical studies across diverse tasks, establishing a basis for future work in input-adaptive and efficient fine-tuning approaches.

Speculative decoding enhances the inference efficiency of large language models (LLMs) by generating drafts using a small draft language model (DLM) and verifying them in batches with a large target language model (TLM). However, adaptive drafting inference on a mobile single-NPU-PIM system faces idle overhead in traditional operator-level synchronous execution and wasted computation in asynchronous execution due to fluctuations in draft length. This paper introduces AHASD, a task-level asynchronous mobile NPU-PIM heterogeneous architecture for speculative decoding. Notably, AHASD achieves parallel drafting on the PIM and verification on a single NPU through task-level DLM-TLM decoupling and specifically, it incorporates Entropy-History-Aware Drafting Control and Time-Aware Pre-Verification Control to dynamically manage adaptive drafting algorithm execution and pre-verification timing, suppressing invalid drafting based on low-confidence drafts. Additionally, AHASD integrates Attention Algorithm Units and Gated Task Scheduling Units within LPDDR5-PIM to enable attention link localization and sub-microsecond task switching on the PIM side. Experimental results for different LLMs and adaptive drafting algorithms show that AHASD achieves up to 4.2$\times$ in throughput and 5.6$\times$ in energy efficiency improvements over a GPU-only baseline, and 1.5$\times$ in throughput and 1.24$\times$ in energy efficiency gains over the state-of-the-art GPU+PIM baseline, with hardware overhead below 3% of the DRAM area.

We propose a per-task leverage ratio for human-agent collaboration: human work displaced by an agent, divided by the human time required to specify the task, resolve mid-run interrupts, and review the result. The denominator decomposes into three channels through which a conserved per-task information requirement must flow, each with its own time-cost scalar. We show that information density itself is directional and bounded by separate ceilings on human-to-agent and agent-to-human flow, and that the asymptotic behavior of leverage decomposes into two scaling axes (capability and memory) with a non-zero floor on the planning term set by irreducible task novelty bounded by human throughput. We extend this per-task analysis to a windowed leverage measure that accommodates recurring tasks, spawned subtasks, and amortized system-design investment. The per-task ceiling does not bind the windowed measure, though both remain bounded: $L_{\text{task}}$ by per-task novelty, $L_{\text{window}}$ by the stock of accumulated planning investment that pays out within the window. The framework operationalizes aspects of earlier qualitative work on supervisory control (Sheridan, 1992), common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991), and mixed-initiative interaction (Horvitz, 1999) within a single normative ratio, and produces a list of testable empirical questions that we leave as open problems.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as complex agentic systems that scale with task complexity. While prior work has extensively explored model- and system-level scaling, algorithm- and task-level scaling remain largely unaddressed, constraining the full potential of agentic systems. At the algorithm level, allocating additional inference-time computation can enhance workflow capacity but introduces cross-path redundancy: overlapping computations across multiple reasoning branches. At the task level, complex tasks can be decomposed into subproblems and delegated across multiple agents for improved scalability and parallelism. However, existing infrastructures' scheduling is unaware of the existence of multiple agents, missing opportunities to optimize resource allocation. We propose Hive, a multi-agent infrastructure that enables algorithm- and task-level scaling. Hive features a description frontend that captures per-agent behavior and supports test-time scaling algorithms. Leveraging this specification, our backend introduces two key mechanisms: Logits Cache that reuses intermediate logits across redundant sampling paths to mitigate cross-path redundancy at the algorithm level, and Agent-Aware Scheduling that efficiently allocates compute and KV-cache resources according to agent contributions at the task level. Experiments show that Logits Cache achieves an average speedup of $1.11\times$-$1.76\times$ for re-sampling, and Agent-Aware Scheduling reduces the hotspot miss rate by $33\%$-$51\%$.

Long-horizon tool-using tasks sometimes benefit from revisiting earlier subtasks for recovery and exploration, but added multi-agent workflow flexibility can also introduce coordination overhead and substantial inference cost. We study complete cyclic subtask graphs, a deliberately maximally flexible multi-agent architecture in which executable subtask nodes are fully connected and a unified state-analysis-and-routing agent selects transitions using natural-language criteria. This makes unrestricted revisitation explicit and directly analyzable at the subtask level. We evaluate task-specific (Spec-Cyc) and benchmark-generic (Gen-Cyc) graphs on TextCraft, ALFWorld, and Finance-Agent, with ablations over planner/executor/router strength, tool exposure (generalist vs specialized), $n$-shot successful trajectory summaries, and fault-injected random subtask perturbations. The benchmarks expose three distinct regimes. ALFWorld highlights a setting where explicit revisitation supports recovery and exploration; TextCraft, a largely prerequisite-chain domain, often favors the efficiency of simpler forward execution; and Finance-Agent remains bottlenecked by retrieval, grounding, and evidence synthesis more than by workflow flexibility alone. Shared-win token comparisons further show that the added flexibility can be substantially more expensive than a single ReAct agent. Overall, we use complete cyclic subtask graphs as a maximally flexible experimental lens for measuring when multi-agent revisitation helps, when it mainly adds coordination cost, and when external task bottlenecks dominate.