#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 4, 2026
cs.CV
Turns Matter: Advancing Streaming Video RL via Turn-Level Credit
Shuai Dong, Kanghui Tian, Linghan Chen and 20 more
Streaming video understanding requires models to repeatedly decide whether to respond or continue observing. Recently, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has been applied to this setting, with existing approaches emphasizing reward design while retaining a single trajectory-level advantage across turns. Such shared credit can reinforce redundant replies after earlier successes and discourage useful follow-ups after earlier failures. We propose TurnWise, a turn-level GRPO framework that aligns learning with individual streaming decisions. TurnWise addresses the mismatch between trajectory-level feedback and turn-level interaction, promoting informative responses and reducing redundancy. Specifically, turn-level credit assignment uses silence-completed prefix scoring to construct group-relative advantages from each decision's remaining return, separating its learning signal from earlier rewards. Turn-mean policy optimization averages token losses within each turn and then across turns, giving response and waiting decisions equal weight regardless of output length. These complementary designs improve streaming policy learning without a learned critic or additional rollouts. Extensive experiments show our method outperforms prior RL approaches for streaming video understanding.
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Context--Answer Metamodels: Forecasting LLM Activations Before the First Answer Token
Tommy He, Thomas Jiralerspong
Under stochastic decoding, a single context can elicit many different answers from a language model. Characterizing this variation typically requires many expensive autoregressive rollouts, each revealing only one realization. We ask whether the activations produced while reading the context can directly forecast the model's rollout activations. We train context--answer metamodels that map a context activation sequence to point or distribution forecasts of mean-pooled answer activations. We find that (i) the four metamodel families we study forecast mean-pooled answer activations with high fidelity, and the distribution metamodels also capture rollout variability; (ii) performance improves as the training set grows to 500,000 prompts, and the metamodels generalize zero-shot to out-of-domain datasets; (iii) their forecasts retain behavior-predictive signal; and (iv) context activations from Qwen2.5 predict mean-pooled answer activations from Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4, suggesting that activation forecasts can transfer across models. Together, these results suggest that context activation traces can support scalable forecasts of behaviors in LLM answers before the first answer token is generated.
#05Nov 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.