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.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.

#02Nov 4, 2026

cs.LG

Template Gap Reconstruction for Shell Output Simulation with Small Language Models

Jarrod Ragsdale, Rajendra Boppana

Small language models offer a compact basis for shell simulation without executing submitted commands, but full-output decoding requires them to predict recurring utility structure alongside content that varies across executions. We introduce template gap reconstruction (TGR), which supplies reusable output literals interspersed with sentinels to be interleaved with autoregressively generated gaps. A template selector chooses which template to be reconstructed, with the empty template retaining full-output decoding. We construct a template bank from 18.7 million outputs collected across heterogeneous execution environments and train a template selector and five reconstruction models initialized from various small language model checkpoints on a target environment excluded from bank construction. Evaluation demonstrates that TGR improves output edit similarity (O-ES) over full-output decoding (FOD) when the optimal template covers more than 25\% of the template, while performing similarly for lower-coverage outputs. Additionally, TGR outperforms FOD for shorter gap sequences, with O-ES values of 0.964 and 0.812, respectively, while maintaining similar performance for longer sequences. TGR reduces the number of tokens generated by 26.3--38.3\% across used tokenizer families. These results support using a reusable output structure as a practical design choice for small shell simulators, improving response fidelity and shortening generation targets while keeping template selection and residual prediction central to response quality.

#03Nov 4, 2026

quant-ph

GFlowQEC: Generative Flow Networks that Learn to Sample Quantum LDPC Codes

Nuno Batista, Gabriel Falcao, Penousal Machado

Choosing a quantum error-correcting code for a real device means scoring candidates with circuit-level simulations so slow that only a few hundred can be run. So every evaluation counts, and a search is judged by how many good codes it finds per paid evaluation. Quantum LDPC codes built from a few group elements protect many logical qubits, but good ones are rare in a huge space. We introduce GFlowQEC, to our knowledge the first generative flow network (GFlowNet) for quantum code design. It builds a code one group element at a time and learns to propose codes in proportion to a power of their score. We train it once on scores from earlier searches, freeze it, and let it propose lifted-product codes with 180 physical qubits, scored by their distances. Ranking ten of its draws per paid call, it finds more than twice as many new top-scoring codes (inequivalent to any it was trained on) as tuned parallel tempering, even when tempering starts from GFlowQEC's training codes. It finds more than three and a half times as many as a supervised screen ranking ten random candidates per call. When both rank a hundred, the screen beats GFlowQEC, and does best ranking GFlowQEC's draws. Soft Q-learning, which shares the GFlowNet's optimal policy, does as well at one noise bias and better at the other, so the gain does not depend on the GFlowNet's training loss. Trained proposers can make a budget of expensive evaluations go further when good codes are rare.

#04Nov 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).

#05Nov 4, 2026

cs.LG

Navigating Disagreement Among Criteria for Evaluating Explanation Faithfulness

Grant Shanklin, Jiří Němeček, Asia Biega

Faithfulness requires that algorithmic explanations accurately reflect the model's behavior. Yet existing operationalizations of faithfulness can disagree about whether the same explanation is faithful, leaving developers and auditors to choose among conflicting evaluations. In this paper, we investigate disagreement among evaluation criteria and offer a practical path forward for evaluating explanation faithfulness. We first identify how operationalizations of faithfulness differ. We introduce a faithfulness functional that locates their disagreements in what an explanation claims about the model, which comparisons bear on that claim, and how agreement across those comparisons should be aggregated, and we reconstruct existing evaluation criteria within it. We argue these reconstructions support understanding faithfulness as a common though incompletely specified relation between the model and explanation, so the differences reflect choices left open by the general requirement. Justifying an operationalization then comes down to justifying these choices, which, on our view, draws on explanatory, institutional, and normative considerations. We support this argument with a case study of adverse action notices, reconstructing the evaluation implicit in an industry-proposed procedure and identifying which of its choices the setting justifies and which remain open. Our work gives auditors and practitioners a way to navigate disagreeing evaluations of faithfulness. It also explains why the literature should expect multiple operationalizations, while showing how concrete settings can narrow the choice among them. More broadly, our analysis shows how a shared requirement of faithfulness can support contextually justified evaluations despite disagreement among existing metrics.