Daily Papers

We introduce Crypto Accounting Bench (CAB), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier and open-weight language models can reconstruct the complete journal entry that an organization actually posted for a crypto-asset transaction. CAB contains 118 evaluation tasks drawn from 7 pseudonymized organizations. Each task combines transaction mechanics, asset quantities and base-currency values, wallet and legal-entity context, counterparty evidence, related transaction legs, recurrence, tax-lot evidence, and the organization's complete chart of accounts. The target is a balanced structured entry with every required account, side, amount, currency, and full-precision asset quantity. We evaluate 12 models spanning proprietary frontier systems and open-weight releases over 3 independent attempts per task, producing 4,248 trajectories. We report 3 metrics: Mean Score, Best@3, and Pass@3. Pass@3 is the fraction of tasks with at least 1 of 3 attempts that satisfies every rubric criterion and required gate. The leading model reaches 77.43% Mean Score, while the best Pass@3 is 56.78%. Deterministic diagnostics, read from each task's best of 3 attempts and macro-averaged across the 12 models, show higher base-amount agreement (97.8%) than deciding-account accuracy (56.3%). Together with the failure analysis, these results identify account selection and complete-entry composition as the main remaining challenges on CAB.

Outcome RL raises pass@1 but not pass@k at large k (Yue et al., 2025). But every pass@1 is scored under a token budget. Every recipe also trains under one. On physics and math problems at fixed token budgets, we compare the pass@1 of 20 released RL models (1.5B to 32B) with that of the thinking models they started from. We ask whether each pass@1 gain is changed behaviour or new knowledge. We divide each change in pass@1 into three parts. Finishing measures answering before the budget runs out. Reliability measures being right once finished. Reach measures problems RL solves that its base answered wrongly in all eight tries, minus problems the base solves that RL answered wrongly in all eight. We find four things. (1) Where the base often hits the token budget before answering, most of the change, gain or loss, is finishing (82% at 4k and 8k). Given more tokens, the base closes most of the finishing gap itself. (2) Where the base has enough tokens, the gain is reliability: the RL model is graded right more often, even on problems both finish. (3) By our definition, RL rarely solves what its base cannot. Reach adds at most 2.1 percentage points on any of our four physics and math sets. We checked 144 physics problems that only the RL model solved. Of these, 3.5% hold up when resampled or read. In a random sample, nine of ten new RL steps a human confirmed also appear in the base's samples. (4) In a small-scale RL run on an 8B model, the gain on new problems is finishing, with reliability flat. Supplying each problem's physical setup was not shown to improve on plain RL.

LLM agents that cache recovery suggestions from API errors can skip re-derivation in later episodes, spending fewer tokens and fewer model calls on constraints they have already learned. Server-side data drift turns those cached fixes into silent failures, and the usual remedy, re-deriving on every episode, gives the savings back. We introduce invalidation contracts, a protocol layer that attaches version stamps and cacheability hints to every recovery suggestion so the client can evict stale entries without trial and error, and keep the rest. The contract decomposes realized savings into two independent factors: validity, the fraction of cached suggestions that remain correct after a drift event, and compliance, the fraction the planner applies on the first attempt. Validity depends only on the protocol and is vendor-independent. Compliance depends on the planner model: identical wire bytes yield 100% first-try compliance on Claude Haiku 4.5 and 11% or below on Claude Sonnet 5, which exhibits input-schema conservatism, refusing fixes that add fields the original request did not contain. We evaluate across seven models, three serving paths, two domains, and approximately 9,400 episodes. Row-level invalidation raises compliance by 0 to 66.7 percentage points across the seven models, 55.6 to 66.7 on three, and recovers 29-33% of baseline token cost on four of seven models, while table-level invalidation destroys co-located entries and drops post-drift first-try rates to 0% on five of seven. Eviction precision is 1.00 at row granularity on every model under the row-level oracle of Section 4.1. The contract adds 15% to response payload. Version-stamp validity is deterministic by construction and produced identical results across every model and serving path, with zero contract failures in the entire evaluation.