#01Nov 4, 2026
econ.EM
Regression with Many Generated Controls
Timothy Christensen, Daniel Vebman
We consider linear regression when some covariates are endogenous, a variable sufficient to control for endogeneity exists but is latent, and the practitioner can generate many proxies for the latent control. For instance, one could cheaply but imperfectly impute the latent control using different AI/ML methods, each generating a different proxy. There are several options the practitioner might consider in this scenario: including all proxies or factors computed from the proxies as controls, instrumental variables estimation, and some nonlinear variants thereof. We use a transparent model to derive the implicit estimand each approach targets, determine when these estimands recover the parameter of interest, and provide some practical recommendations. We show that with a sufficiently rich set of generated controls, practitioners can consistently estimate the parameter of interest without relying on validation data.
#02Nov 4, 2026
cs.CL
Ranking Agreement Does Not Reveal Paragraph-Edit Agreement in Two Released Paper Acceptance Predictors
Shaoliang Yang, Jun Wang
A fast acceptance classifier could select revisions for a slower evaluator. We ask whether agreement on existing papers supports that use. We compare a classifier of word and document features with two released text-only acceptance predictors fine-tuned from the same language model with three billion parameters. For 198 papers from the International Conference on Learning Representations, we compare model rankings of the original papers and of paragraph rewrites screened automatically for unchanged facts, claim strength, and attribution. The classifier ranks original papers closely with one predictor and moderately with the other, but shows no detectable agreement with either on which rewrites raise scores. The tests specified in advance used reduced numerical precision. Rounding error dominated the small score responses. We therefore rescored the released weights in full 32-bit precision as a post hoc check; edit agreement remained near zero. At this precision, when each predictor chooses among five rewrites per paper, its average raw score is under two points out of 100 higher than with random choice. The evidence covers presentation rewrites and two open predictors from one family; transfer to costly evaluators remains untested. Revision selectors should therefore be checked against the intended evaluator on the revisions they rank.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Reinforcement Learning Enables Scaling Generalist Robot Policy Improvement
Michal Korniak, Marco Bagatella, Ralf Römer and 21 more
The introduction of generalist robot policies has enabled a single, large model to learn to perform a variety of tasks from a vast pre-training corpus. While these models often exhibit powerful zero-shot generalization capabilities, they typically require an adaptation phase to achieve sufficient performance in deployment. Iterated self-improvement via reinforcement learning (RL) has demonstrated promise in enabling this adaptation, yet such approaches have been largely explored in single-task settings - where the goal is to simply improve on a narrow deployment task - which lies in stark contrast to the multi-task capabilities of the base policy. In this work we ask whether generalist robot policies are capable of multi-task, generalist improvement in deployment - targeting many diverse tasks simultaneously - and what algorithmic recipe enables this. To answer this question, we first develop a set of structured evaluations to test generalist improvement capabilities, and systematically evaluate algorithmic and practical design choices regarding value estimation, policy extraction and resource allocation. We show that not only can generalist policies be improved online across diverse tasks, but that the right recipe can enable generalization and increase performance on tasks not considered during online training. We characterize when this generalization occurs and show that both the training task distribution and the use of value-based RL are critical. To the best of our knowledge, this is among the first evidence for online generalist improvement for robot foundation models.
#05Nov 4, 2026
math.ST
Regularization vs. Convolution in Kernel-Based Hypothesis Testing
Omar Hagrass, Bharath K. Sriperumbudur
The maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) test is a popular nonparametric test on general domains. Two lines of work have studied its optimality through structurally different approaches. The first, a convolution approach on $\mathbb{R}^d$, uses translation-invariant kernels with a shrinking bandwidth and is minimax optimal over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation; the second, a regularization approach on general measurable spaces, uses spectral regularization of the kernel covariance operator and is minimax optimal over Hellinger- and $χ^2$-separated alternatives. In this paper, we study the regularization approach over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation, which reveals the connection between the two approaches. We show that, with a translation-invariant kernel on $\mathbb{R}^d$, both are ways of meeting a single condition on the kernel's spectral density: the spectral regularized discrepancy captures the $L^2$-separation $Δ$ of a Sobolev alternative of smoothness $s$ as soon as the regularization parameter $λ$ is below the spectral density on frequencies up to $Δ^{-1/(2s)}$. A kernel with a shrinking bandwidth $h$ meets this condition with $λ\asymp h^d$, and under this coupling the constant regularizer, which gives the MMD test itself, attains the Sobolev minimax rate. This explains, from a spectral perspective, the need for a shrinking bandwidth in the convolution approach. With a non-constant spectral regularizer, our analysis requires the bandwidth to shrink only when the spectral density decays faster than any polynomial, as for the Gaussian kernel. Thus, for Matérn and Laplace kernels, a fixed bandwidth with $λ\to 0$ attains the Sobolev minimax rate. Finally, an adaptive test over a grid of bandwidths and regularization parameters is minimax optimal, up to a $\log\log$ factor, over both classes without prior knowledge of the smoothness.