Detailed Balance in Large Language Model-Driven Agents
Posted18 days agoActive13 days ago
arxiv.orgResearchstory
informativeneutral
Debate
20/100
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningComplex Systems
Key topics
Artificial Intelligence
Machine Learning
Complex Systems
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
4d
Peak period
3
96-108h
Avg / period
2
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 16, 2025 at 7:17 AM EST
18 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 19, 2025 at 9:08 PM EST
4d after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 96-108h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 20, 2025 at 7:21 PM EST
13 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46287626Type: storyLast synced: 12/21/2025, 4:20:26 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The definition of the detailed balance condition is very strict and it's obvious that it won't be met in general by most probabilistic programs (sets of rules with probabilistic output) even if you consider only those where all possible outputs have non-zero probability (as required by detailed balance).
And the LLM+agent is only a Markov chain because of the limited state space of the agent. While an LLM is adding to its context window without reaching the window size limit, it is not a Markov chain, as I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45124761
Would love it if I could use my least action principle knowledge for LLM interpretability, this paper doesn't convince me at all :)
We conducted experiments on three different models, including GPT-5 Nano, Claude-4, and Gemini-2.5-flash. Each model was prompted to gener- ate a new word based on a given prompt word such that the sum of the letter indices of the new word equals 100. For example, given the prompt “WIZ- ARDS(23+9+26+1+18+4+19=100)”, the model needs to generate a new word whose letter indices also sum to 100, such as “BUZZY(2+21+26+26+25=100)”
Pretty cool.
I wonder if this can be interpreted as consistent with that 'meta-learned descent' PoV? If the system is fixed and is just cycling through fixed strategies, that is what you'd expect from that: the descent will thrash around the nearest pre-learned tasks but won't change the overall system or create new solved tasks.