Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper audits LLM-driven program search for pricing Bermudan options and finds that none of the generated policies reliably beat a standard Ridge LSMC baseline by more than Monte Carlo noise. The authors show that the dual upper bound validates results but is too loose to measure progress, since 99% of the estimated gap comes from bound looseness. For AI readers, the main lesson is methodological: claims of search success depend on reporting rules such as keeping the initial reference, freezing selection before holdout, and counting failed attempts.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Auditing LLM Program Search for Bermudan Stopping with Primal--Dual Certificates

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.14063v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM program-search agents are usually judged by the score that drives their search. We study LLM-driven search over Python exercise policies for Bermudan options, an optimal stopping problem where a trusted evaluator owns the simulation and a dual upper bound~$U$. For any policy, $0 \le V^\star - L_\pi \le U - L_\pi$; we report Monte Carlo estimates of both bounds with their sampling error. We audit 24 generation attempts from two pipelines, a six-pair feedback-representation ablation, and a holdout evaluated after selection was frozen. No selected generated program improves on Ridge LSMC consistently or by more than Monte Carlo uncertainty; holdout gap scores lie within $0.002$ of it. On six one-dimensional puts, a high-precision binomial reference places Ridge within Monte Carlo noise of optimal and attributes 99\% of the estimated gap to dual-bound looseness, so this dual audits validity but cannot certify progress at the search's scale. Structured memory showed no benefit over score-only memory in this ablation. Whether search ``worked'' depends on reporting rules: retaining the initial reference, freezing selection before holdout, and counting failures.

Abstract:LLM program-search agents are usually judged by the score that drives their search. We study LLM-driven search over Python exercise policies for Bermudan options, an optimal stopping problem where a trusted evaluator owns the simulation and a dual upper bound~$U$. For any policy, $0 \le V^\star - L_\pi \le U - L_\pi$; we report Monte Carlo estimates of both bounds with their sampling error. We audit 24 generation attempts from two pipelines, a six-pair feedback-representation ablation, and a holdout evaluated after selection was frozen. No selected generated program improves on Ridge LSMC consistently or by more than Monte Carlo uncertainty; holdout gap scores lie within $0.002$ of it. On six one-dimensional puts, a high-precision binomial reference places Ridge within Monte Carlo noise of optimal and attributes 99\% of the estimated gap to dual-bound looseness, so this dual audits validity but cannot certify progress at the search's scale. Structured memory showed no benefit over score-only memory in this ablation. Whether search ``worked'' depends on reporting rules: retaining the initial reference, freezing selection before holdout, and counting failures.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.14063 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.14063v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14063 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 273 words

Related coverage