#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.CL
Label-Wording Augmentation in a Typed-Decision Encoder: Gains on Unfamiliar Words, Not on Abbreviations or Codes
Vladimir Beskorovainyi
Typed-decision models score options that the caller supplies at request time, so their accuracy depends on label wording that the model's developer does not control. We compare two releases of a 307M-parameter multilingual cross-encoder, Ru-Jev, trained on thirteen Russian-language tasks; the later release adds an augmentation that presents labels in several surface forms. Holding questions fixed and varying only how eighteen routing labels are worded, we evaluate ten label vocabularies, produced by three separate processes and checked for overlap with the training data, with five candidates per question and, for eight of them, also with eighteen. On held-out vocabularies made of ordinary or borrowed words (English-derived jargon, office slang, department names), the augmented release is more accurate in every setting, by up to 0.24. Eleven of these fourteen gains survive a Holm correction (slang with eighteen candidates and descriptive sentences with five do not), and for jargon on all labels the label-level interval excludes zero in both settings. On abbreviations and opaque codes it gives no usable gain: on abbreviations it is not better, and worse on the clean slice, and on opaque codes both releases stay at or below chance once labels related to training options are removed. In most cells where accuracy rises, the risk-coverage area falls, but with eighteen candidates confident errors rise on jargon and slang. On two datasets neither release saw, accuracy moves by -8.4 and +5.6 points. We also report four evaluation hazards from comparing the two releases.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
XStack: A Benchmark for ML Repo Migration
Linrong Cai, Taiming Lu, Haozhe Chen and 1 more
ML code should run where researchers choose, not where it was first written. Today, machine learning code mainly lives in two ecosystems, PyTorch on NVIDIA GPUs and JAX on Google TPUs. Migrating repositories between them means building and testing across frameworks and hardware. This migration is (1) a practical need, since it unlocks different hardware for researchers, and (2) a natural benchmark: it involves different frameworks and hardware, covers whole repositories, and is long-horizon and challenging. We introduce XStack, a benchmark that evaluates agents on migrating ML repositories between these two ecosystems. Each agent receives a PyTorch repository and a clean TPU machine and must deliver a JAX repository. Its output passes if it meets our grading criteria, based on the source repository's published result, authenticated and calibrated by us. Migration by agents remains unreliable: Claude Opus 5 passes 75%, GPT-5.6-sol 45%, and every other agent at most 40%. XStack is a step toward freeing ML code from its ecosystem. We release XStack to make progress toward reliable migration across frameworks and hardware measurable.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
The Power of Meta Access in the Software of the Future --- Demonstrated on LLM Chat UIs and Chat AI
Julian Kunkel, Ali Doosthosseini
Chat remains the default surface for many large language model (LLM) tasks, even as agentic tools such as OpenCode excel at coding and automation. Yet the model sees the current dialogue but not the workspace around it. We explore meta access---giving the assistant a structured, permissioned view of the interface itself and propose a ladder of levels: feature tutoring; metadata, settings, and preference access; retrieval over summaries and messages, confirmed mutation, and full orchestration. Meta access can turn a chat client from many screens into one entry point for finding, navigating, organising, and operating it, while raising risks around grounding, privacy, prompt injection, and trust. General-purpose agentic harnesses are runtimes; because they can change their own settings, meta access becomes reflexive and needs a separate control-plane boundary. We ground this in the Meta Chat prototype of the Chat AI client. It builds bounded context from, e.g., summaries, settings, and relevant messages; links references to conversations, topics, and personas; supports confirmed, reversible changes; offers a browsable tutorial library; and recommends personas as user-started conversations. By exposing application state in structured form, meta access can extend screen readers from widget descriptions to semantic workspace operations. Meta access thus turns chat from a window onto one conversation into a control layer for the whole workspace, extending chat toward agentic capability without surrendering user control. As assistants become embedded in IDEs, dashboards, office suites, and operating systems, AI-era interfaces should expose a structured, permissioned model of their state and capabilities, ideally by opening their existing metamodels through a debugger-like interface.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
User Embeddings are Superpositions of Interpretable Behavioral Modes
Jonathan Kozaczuk, Zheng Dong, Noyan Evirgen and 7 more
User embeddings are central components of modern recommendation, personalization, and behavioral modeling systems. Though these embeddings can compactly encode rich behavioral information, they are inherently dense and opaque, limiting interpretability. To address this gap, we argue that user embeddings can be understood as sparse superpositions of interpretable behavioral modes. This structure is directly predicted by generative models of user behavior for linear embeddings and extends approximately to deep-learning representations by the superposition hypothesis. Superimposed modes can naturally be recovered by sparse dictionary learning methods, such as sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and recovered modes can be automatically named and queried in natural language. We validate mode recovery against known ground truth on synthetic data, where SAEs recover modes better than classical sparse baselines, including on transformer-encoded embeddings. We then apply the method to classical and transformer-based user embeddings from two real-world datasets. We also show how the corresponding natural-language labels enable zero-shot audience retrieval and characterization over embeddings never trained on text. The framework is post-hoc and model-agnostic, requiring no modification to the upstream embedding system.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
The Gold Rush in AI4Math, II: What are signatures of AI-assisted Proofs?
Yuanchuan Guo, Jiashun Jin, Zheng Tracy Ke and 1 more
The growing use of AI in mathematics raises a question: can we detect AI involvement in proofs, separately from AI assistance with writing? Historical arXiv papers, recent papers disclosing substantive AI use, and manuscripts released by OpenAI provide a rich empirical basis for studying this question. However, several challenges remain: lack of matched case-control pairs; potential incompleteness of disclosure; and lack of ready-to-use features designed to capture signals of AI involvement in proofs. To address these challenges, we construct five cohorts comprising 8,281 papers by combining existing manuscripts with those we produced using generative AI. These cohorts span different levels of AI involvement and include matched pairs of papers addressing the same research problems. We then introduce ProofTrace, a framework that represents each paper as a graph of immediate proof support (GIPS) and extracts interpretable features of mathematical organization. Our study yields three discoveries. First, principal-component projections of our features reveal a qualitative gradient of AI involvement, where AI-reworded papers remain close to human papers, the two AI-generated cohorts depart in broadly shared directions, and papers disclosing substantive AI use occupy intermediate positions which shifts toward AI-generated cohorts over time. Second, we identify recurring signatures of AI-generated proofs, such as fewer externally cited results, greater reliance on intermediate conclusions, and altered graph connectivity; many of these signatures persist under controls for research field, manuscript length, or graph size. Finally, in a separate detection experiment, ProofTrace distinguishes human-written papers from those disclosing substantive AI use. Its performance remains stable under AI rewording, whereas the performance of state-of-the-art text-based detectors declines sharply.