aiqbench analysis
The paper argues that much of the performance gap between small and large models in procedural tool-use tasks comes from missing procedure rather than missing capability. Its PLVR method distills a teacher model's reasoning traces into a verified program that runs alongside unchanged student models, with no weight updates. Results on tau2-Bench and LiveMCPBench are strong on Telecom but mixed elsewhere: an 8B student closes most of the gap in procedural domains, while tool search still favors stronger base models.
Compiling Expert Procedures into Verified Programs: When a Small Model Is Enough
arXiv:2610.19148v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In procedural tool-use domains, how much of the gap between base models is procedure rather than capability? We build an explicit program from a teacher's traces and run it in front of unchanged small models, including an 8B model. The construction, PLVR , takes the reasoning traces of a teacher, Kimi-K3, clusters their segments to locate recurring operations, has a frontier model author one typed primitive per operation, each run by a small frozen model and assembles the program by A* search over a mined rule library, under a reference-action objective. At inference the program takes one of two forms: for troubleshooting and tool search it produces the chain of thought the student would otherwise generate for itself, and the student acts on it; for multi-turn tool matching the student proposes each action and the program checks, repairs, or retries it before it goes out. On the official tau2-Bench Retail and Telecom test sets and on LiveMCPBench, with three Nemotron base models and the same program for each, the answer depends on the domain. On Telecom, Granite-4.2-8B as the student goes from 43.0% to 91.2% under the program, and every Nemotron student reaches 93.3-94.4%, against at most 58.2% for fine-tuning on the same traces, prompt optimisation of the student, or two token-matched baselines. With Granite-4.2-8B as the student, the program is within 2 to 3 points of the Nemotron students on Telecom and within 3 on Retail, and 3 to 13 points below them on LiveMCPBench: where the domain is procedural an 8B student is enough, and on tool search the student still matters. On Retail and LiveMCPBench the program is competitive with the best baseline. The spread between base models shrinks from about 7 points to about 2, averaged over the suites, with no weights changed.
Abstract:In procedural tool-use domains, how much of the gap between base models is procedure rather than capability? We build an explicit program from a teacher's traces and run it in front of unchanged small models, including an 8B model. The construction, PLVR , takes the reasoning traces of a teacher, Kimi-K3, clusters their segments to locate recurring operations, has a frontier model author one typed primitive per operation, each run by a small frozen model and assembles the program by A* search over a mined rule library, under a reference-action objective. At inference the program takes one of two forms: for troubleshooting and tool search it produces the chain of thought the student would otherwise generate for itself, and the student acts on it; for multi-turn tool matching the student proposes each action and the program checks, repairs, or retries it before it goes out. On the official tau2-Bench Retail and Telecom test sets and on LiveMCPBench, with three Nemotron base models and the same program for each, the answer depends on the domain. On Telecom, Granite-4.2-8B as the student goes from 43.0% to 91.2% under the program, and every Nemotron student reaches 93.3-94.4%, against at most 58.2% for fine-tuning on the same traces, prompt optimisation of the student, or two token-matched baselines. With Granite-4.2-8B as the student, the program is within 2 to 3 points of the Nemotron students on Telecom and within 3 on Retail, and 3 to 13 points below them on LiveMCPBench: where the domain is procedural an 8B student is enough, and on tool search the student still matters. On Retail and LiveMCPBench the program is competitive with the best baseline. The spread between base models shrinks from about 7 points to about 2, averaged over the suites, with no weights changed.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Symbolic Computation (cs.SC)
arXiv:2610.19148 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.19148v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19148 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 · 394 words
Related coverage
[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026
An Organizational Second Brain: Building an AI That Learns From Experts
Meta Engineering · Sep 2, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026