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

#01Nov 4, 2026

cs.RO

Perceptive Humanoid Motion from Simulation

Siyuan Hu, Abulikemu Abuduweili, Yue Meng and 5 more

Humanoid robots have the potential to automate a wide range of physical tasks. Progress toward generalist humanoid autonomy, however, remains constrained by a data bottleneck: mapping pixels and free-form language to low-level joint commands requires paired supervision, and no corpus of such data exists at sufficiently large scale. Some approaches rely on human teleoperation and wearable capture devices, which require at least an hour of human time to produce an hour of data. We present HALO, a humanoid autonomy system powered by a pipeline that synthesizes vision-language-motion data across a thousand procedurally generated homes. The corpus scales with compute rather than human labor. HALO acquires a repertoire of physical skills, including sitting on chairs, navigating to named objects, stepping sideways through half-open doors, crouching and crawling beneath tables, and pushing boxes. It orchestrates these skills to solve composite, long-horizon tasks. Without ever seeing a real home during training, HALO transfers zero-shot to the physical world, achieving a 91% success rate across 360 trials in six unmapped real-world environments. See https://apple-aiml-research.github.io/ml-halo/ for code and videos.

#02Nov 4, 2026

cs.CV

Same Layout, Different Count: What Number Words Do Past Ten in Text-to-Image Models

Liang Yue, Eric A. Vance

Ask SD3.5-Medium for twelve of an object and then, from the same starting noise, for twenty-five. The picture keeps its layout, but the count changes about as much as it would under a new random seed, and in no consistent direction. We study what number words do once a request passes about ten objects, in five open text-to-image models. Holding the object and the starting noise fixed, we change one thing at a time, and people who never see the request count 3,088 of the images. Every model follows the number for small crowds, but only up to a point, its reach: SD3.5-M and FLUX.1-dev stop following it soon after ten, while FLUX.2 [klein] and Qwen-Image follow it loosely up to twenty-five. Beyond SD3.5-M's reach, the coarse part of the starting noise fixes the composition of the picture but not how many objects it holds: redrawing only the noise finer than an eighth of the image keeps the layout as well as a new number does, and already moves the count two-thirds as far. The number word still reaches the denoiser and acts in its first steps, but nothing we tried gives it a clear direction. Shown instead as a noised grid in the starting latent, the count is drawn: people find it in 59% of images, against 4% when it is only told. Past ten, an exact-match score barely separates a model that follows the number loosely from one that ignores it, and a relative-error score can even prefer a constant guess of sixteen. A same-noise test with a few requests per object tells them apart.

#03Nov 4, 2026

cs.LG

Adaptive Multi Mode: Budget-Aware Routing of Optimizers By Online Landscape Probes

Benjamin Jacob Bodner

The best classical optimizer for a continuous black-box problem depends on its budget and landscape. Existing routers decide from the dimension and budget, past improvement or features fitted to one benchmark, and few test an optimizer's implicit assumptions online. AMM (Adaptive Multi Mode) routes a known budget among quasi-Newton, trust-region, coordinate, multistart and evolution-strategy optimization engines with online probes of curvature, plateaus, separability, kinks, basins and fractal structure. Each probe has a default, a dimension-by-budget validity range and a cost charged to the budget. In its pre-registered development loop on bbob, 32 of 36 predictions held over the last 16 confirmations. AMM was then tested once on held-out bbob instances 101-110 (D=2-40, 10*D-1000*D) against up to seven competitors. It has the highest target share in 382 of 600 function-dimension-budget cells (236 outright, 146 tied) and, by a descriptive posterior rule, is credibly behind in 35, mostly at 10*D and 30*D. At every budget it also leads the controls built from its own engines (the best engine alone, the best engine per dimension and budget, and a greedy schedule), narrowly at 10*D and 30*D, and nevergrad's NgIohTuned. In pre-registered runs its lead over IPOP-CMA-ES holds under affine and box transformations, on box-constrained bbob and, pooled, on rotated f2-f4, but rotating the separable f3 and f4 removes most of the lead there. On held-out MA-BBOB its final share at 2000*D is level with IPOP-CMA-ES's and its anytime area lower. We published AMM as an open-source Python package (pip install amm-optimizer; https://github.com/BjBodner/amm-optimizer).

#04Nov 4, 2026

cs.AI

Dull, Dirty, Dangerous? Working Conditions and the Limits of Occupational AI Exposure

Siyi Yu

Automation is often justified as relief from dull, dirty, and dangerous work. I examine how these conditions relate to occupational AI exposure using 21 O*NET items across 754 US occupations. Higher exposure is associated with lower condition scores under a large language model (LLM) measure and AI Occupational Exposure (AIOE), with equal occupation weights and employment weights. Adjustment for physical demands, required education, training and experience, and wages reduces the composite association. The adjusted confidence intervals include zero for LLM exposure and remain below zero for AIOE. Separating repetition from restricted discretion also changes what the combined Dull score conveys. These comparisons show how item groupings and occupational characteristics shape the interpretation of exposure estimates. Occupational profiles offer a starting point for selecting contrasting research settings. Establishing desired automation or realized relief requires evidence about workers' preferences and specific interventions.

#05Nov 4, 2026

cs.AI

CompressionBench: How can your coding agents compress LLMs?

Xinrui Zhong, Zhifeng Li, Zhiming Wang and 6 more

Recursive self-improvement requires AI systems to improve the models and infrastructure used by subsequent systems. LLM compression offers a concrete efficiency objective: retain a pretrained model's behavior within a smaller model storage budget. We study whether coding agents can carry out this step autonomously. We formulate compression as a terminal task in which an agent receives a source checkpoint, storage limit, inference environment, and time budget, then constructs compressed weights and executable inference code. The agent controls its algorithm and experiments; perplexity feedback guides search, and independent verification checks the final model. Across six agents and six model--size settings, 29 of 36 submissions pass verification. Selecting the lowest-perplexity agent design per task yields an average 3.4% perplexity increase over BF16 and 77.33% downstream accuracy, compared with 79.56% for BF16. Recorded experiments reveal how agents achieve these outcomes and where improvement breaks down. Agents lower PPL in 21 of 24 revisions at nearly fixed storage; complete-model feedback reverses 17 of 79 prior local rankings; and generation and inference tests expose failures that likelihood alone misses. The results identify representation design, experimental judgment, and capability validation as central to agent-driven model compression, a measurable component of efficiency-oriented self-improvement.