ML Reads

Personal arXiv list

ML papers to read today.

Pick a topic and keep a small daily list of papers worth opening.

Refresh queueDaily mix

Today's queue

5 papers

#01Oct 22, 2026

cs.AI

DuoCook: An Overcooked-Inspired Benchmark for Visual Planning and Coordination

Ziyi Jiao, Heng Zhang, Drishti Regmi and 3 more

Coordinating two players in a cooking task requires a vision-language agent to track changing scene states, sequence recipe steps, and allocate shared resources under a time budget. We introduce an Overcooked-inspired benchmark for evaluating these capabilities in Unreal Engine environments constructed using coding agents. A single vision-language model controls both players from top-down visual observations, selecting high-level actions while the engine executes navigation. The benchmark contains 20 maps in five categories. These categories support evaluation of centralized coordination under equipment contention, changing terrain, and handoff dependencies. A prop legend and pot ingredient-count indicators provide explicit visual cues, while grid-based destinations support spatial grounding. The evaluation compares four VLMs on all 20 maps, measuring task score, order completion, delivery precision, action acceptance rate, and model API expenditure. A memory ablation on the same 20 maps examines the effect of a shared, self-authored notebook while retaining six-response action history in both conditions. The strongest evaluated model, \texttt{gpt-6-astra}, achieves 26.2\% mean order completion. Notebook memory has mixed score effects across models, with positive mean differences for Claude and Qwen and negative differences for GPT and Gemini.

#02Oct 22, 2026

cs.AI

Direct Pass@$k$ Optimization for Thought Pruning: Balancing Quality and Diversity in Test-Time Reasoning

Mahdi Salmani, Adel Javanmard, Devansh Gupta and 1 more

Test-time scaling has emerged as a key inference strategy for reasoning models, where a model generates a large number of candidate solutions in the hope of finding at least one correct solution. Running all candidate solutions to completion can be computationally demanding, so recent work prunes the candidate pool after generating only a short prefix, committing further computation only to the surviving candidates. Existing pruning strategies divide broadly into two categories: Quality-based methods assign a score to each partial solution and discard those predicted to ultimately lead to an incorrect final solution, while diversity-based methods select partial solutions that follow different reasoning trajectories and are therefore likely to cover different final solutions. The tension between these two objectives is an instance of exploration versus exploitation, yet little to no prior work on pruning exposes this trade-off directly, let alone optimizes it. In this paper, we introduce a pruning procedure that addresses this trade-off directly by optimizing pass@$k$ over the selected solution pool. In particular, it chooses the pool to maximize the probability that at least one of its partial solutions, when continued to completion, yields a correct answer. Because this objective simultaneously rewards high-quality partial solutions and penalizes redundancy among them, quality and diversity are naturally balanced by the criterion itself rather than through separate ad-hoc design choices. On eight open-weight reasoning models, our method outperforms existing quality-based and diversity-based pruning strategies. The gains are particularly pronounced when the pruning procedure keeps a moderate number of partial solutions for continued generation, highlighting the value of directly balancing quality and diversity during pruning.

#03Oct 22, 2026

cs.LG

Diffusion Language Models for Perplexity-Aware Black-Box Attacks

Ali Al-Lawati, Elsayed Eshra, Dongwon Lee and 1 more

\emph{Continuous-space} attacks find prompts that trigger malicious behaviors, such as overthinking, in black-box LLMs by sampling or optimizing over a low-dimensional Gaussian latent space and decoding it to text through a \emph{random mapping} and nearest-token lookup. Because the random mapping is not learned from language, its prompts can be highly unnatural, and as such easily detectable through input guardrails, and the risk estimates they yield are not grounded in natural prompts. In this paper, we demonstrate that the same continuous latent-space framework can be coupled directly to a learned generative distribution over language, a continuous diffusion language model (dLLM), which removes the artificial random mapping while preserving the standard-Gaussian latent formulation and the downstream sampling or optimization procedure. We evaluate this approach under two settings: sampling-based estimation using \emph{RareTrap} and optimization-based search using \emph{ThinkTrap}. We find that character-level perplexity drops from $10^3$--$10^7$ to 3--5 in RareTrap and from 20--28 to 4.3--5.4 in ThinkTrap. We also find that model risk estimates can differ by an order of magnitude across the two mappings.

#04Oct 22, 2026

cs.SE

VERA: A Responsible AI Dashboard for Assessing LLM Deployments in Light of the EU AI Act

Robin Quériaux, Solveig Bachellery, Léa Déléris and 4 more

Institutions that deploy large language models in regulated settings often need technical evidence of responsible AI practices before approving a deployment. COMPL-AI provides a technical interpretation of the EU AI Act that organises this evidence under six principle groups and eighteen technical requirements, twelve of which current benchmarks can measure. The benchmark suites that produce this evidence are typically operated from a command line, while the staff who approve deployments are non-engineers. We present VERA, an open-source self-hosted dashboard deployed to facilitate responsible AI processes within a large European bank. A reviewer selects a model and runs public benchmarks against it. VERA scores the twelve requirements that current benchmarks can measure and instruments the energy consumed by each evaluation, adding run-level evidence for environmental impact. We run four served open-weight models through the requirement pipeline, and the dashboard displays a score for each measurable requirement. A within-subject study then compares how participants read these benchmark results: from the raw output files in one condition, and through the VERA dashboard in the other. The dashboard reduced the time needed to perform the responsible AI assessment, reducing the time required from 56 seconds using raw files to 30 seconds using our dashboard, on average. Our dashboard scored highly (4.36 out of 5) on usefulness in the survey conducted within the organization. The dashboard and the study material are released publicly to promote replicability and reproducibility in different organisational contexts.

#05Oct 22, 2026

cs.CL

Would an LLM Match into a Residency? Uncertainty, Reasoning and Image Use of Open Language Models on the Spanish MIR Examination

Miguel Fernandez-de-Retana, Unai Zulaika, Ruben Sanchez-Corcuera and 2 more

Accuracy on medical examinations is common evidence offered for the clinical use of language models, yet a health system that intends to run an open model on its own hardware needs to know considerably more: whether the model recognizes when it is likely to be wrong, whether medical fine-tuning improves this ability, whether its correct answers rest on sound clinical reasoning, or whether it actually uses the images it is given. We examine these questions for four open models of 8 to 27 billion parameters on the Spanish MIR residency examination, scoring 1,552 questions from eight editions under the exam's own rules. Answering every question, the three larger models would rank among roughly the first 600 to 3,000 candidates, with 41 to 43 specialties still open to them. Abstention, however, never pays, because even their least confident answers are right more often than the 25% break-even. Medical fine-tuning reduced overconfidence at the cost of accuracy, without improving how well confidence separates right from wrong answers. Moreover, 13-38% of correct answers rejected a distractor for a clinically unsound reason that confidence did not reflect, and removing or swapping the provided contextual images left accuracy unchanged.