Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses

Summary

arXiv:2609.35873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated generation of LLM harnesses promises to improve inference through task specialization. Yet additional answer coverage can arise from repeated execution of the same program, making specialization difficult to identify. We introduce a controlled evaluation that separates answer coverage, repeatable task advantages, and gains from pre-execution selection. On 386 MATH-500 tasks, we compare eight generated harnesses plus a baseline with nine byte-identical baseline copies, using three executions per member. Identical programs yield 2.16 percentage points of repeat-averaged oracle headroom. Generated programs exhibit substantially more repeatable score patterns, but these chiefly reveal persistent weaknesses: losses relative to the basel…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Ziyang Xu, Haitian Zhong, Hao Zhou, Hao Qin, Chenhan Jin, Te Qi, Shengze Xu, Tieyong Zeng
More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 26 Sep 2026]

Title:More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses

View a PDF of the paper titled More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses, by Ziyang Xu and 7 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Automated generation of LLM harnesses promises to improve inference through task specialization. Yet additional answer coverage can arise from repeated execution of the same program, making specialization difficult to identify. We introduce a controlled evaluation that separates answer coverage, repeatable task advantages, and gains from pre-execution selection. On 386 MATH-500 tasks, we compare eight generated harnesses plus a baseline with nine byte-identical baseline copies, using three executions per member. Identical programs yield 2.16 percentage points of repeat-averaged oracle headroom. Generated programs exhibit substantially more repeatable score patterns, but these chiefly reveal persistent weaknesses: losses relative to the baseline persist across all three repeats on 100 tasks, while persistent wins occur on only one task and are sensitive to answer extraction. The frozen selector gains 0.00 percentage points, and both populations reach 98.70% oracle coverage at 27 harness executions. Stable complementarity remains unresolved at three repeats. Supporting BIRD traces locate failures in mechanism implementation, activation, and output validity. Together, these findings establish why coverage and repeatability alone cannot justify claims of useful specialization. They motivate an evaluation standard for harness diversity: task advantages should persist across executions, guide usable decisions, and improve on additional fixed-program executions under matched inference budgets.

Comments: 26 pages, 4 figures, including references and appendices. Under review at ICLR 2027. Code: this https URL

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.35873 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.35873v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35873

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Ziyang Xu [view email] [v1] Sat, 26 Sep 2026 18:16:07 UTC (1,566 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled More Programs or More Rolls? Separating Coverage from Specialization in LLM Harnesses, by Ziyang Xu and 7 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG cs.SE

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.35873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated generation of LLM harnesses promises to improve inference through task specialization. Yet additional answer coverage can…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.