S. Feizi
Famous AuthorPublications
Do Agent Optimizers Compound? A Continual-Learning Evaluation on Terminal-Bench 2.0
Most reported gains from agent-optimization methods are one-shot: an agent is optimized against a fixed benchmark and the resulting improvement is reported as if it were a stable property of the method. This does not test the setting that matters for deployed agents, where optimization is applied recursively as new failures and new tasks appear over time. The central question this raises is whether optimizer-driven gains compound: after an agent has been optimized once, can it be optimized again on newly arrived tasks without eroding the gains the first round produced? We study this question with a two-phase continual-learning evaluation built from hard tasks in Terminal-Bench 2.0, comparing three approaches to agent-harness optimization (GEPA, Meta Harness, and RELAI's Verifiable Continual Learning, RELAI-VCL) under identical optimization budgets. All three methods improve over the baseline agent in the conventional, static, single-phase setting. However, once new tasks are introduced, the methods diverge sharply: GEPA's optimized agent transfers below the unoptimized baseline, Meta Harness transfers well but fails to improve further once given a second optimization budget, and RELAI-VCL is the only method that both transfers positively to unseen tasks and continues improving after those tasks are folded into the optimization objective, reaching the highest pass rate at every evaluated stage and the highest lifelong average pass rate overall (76.4% vs. 66.0% for GEPA, 64.6% for Meta Harness, and 58.7% for the baseline). Our key observation was that optimization gains compounded only when regression control was built into the optimization loop, providing an inductive bias against shortcut solutions that fail to generalize.
Early Stopping for Large Reasoning Models via Confidence Dynamics
Large reasoning models rely on long chain-of-thought generation to solve complex problems, but extended reasoning often incurs substantial computational cost and can even degrade performance due to overthinking. A key challenge is determining when the model should stop reasoning and produce the final answer. In this work, we study the confidence of intermediate answers during reasoning and observe two characteristic behaviors: correct reasoning trajectories often reach high-confidence answers early, while incorrect rollouts tend to produce long, unproductive reasoning traces and exhibit less reliable confidence dynamics. Motivated by these observations, we propose CoDE-Stop (Confidence Dynamics Early Stop), an early stopping method that leverages the dynamics of intermediate answer confidence to decide when to terminate reasoning, requiring no additional training and easily integrating into existing models. We evaluate CoDE-Stop on diverse reasoning and science benchmarks across multiple models. Compared to prior early stopping methods, it achieves a more favorable accuracy-compute tradeoff and reduces total token usage by 25-50% compared to standard full-length reasoning. In addition, we provide analyses of confidence dynamics during reasoning, offering insights into how confidence changes in both correct and incorrect trajectories.