#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.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.CV
Coupled Scene Graph Anticipation: When With-Constraint Recall Hides Structural Inconsistency
Zeno Nongmaithem, Anushttha Srivastava, Anshit Sinha and 4 more
Scene Graph Anticipation (SGA) predicts object relationships in future video frames. Continuous-time SGA models evolve each subject-object pair with an independent Neural ODE, so relationships sharing an entity cannot influence one another during integration, and nothing prevents mutually exclusive predictions, such as "sitting on" and "standing on", for the same pair. We introduce CoupledSGA, which links such relationships through a Relationship Interaction Graph with graph attention inside the ODE vector field, and adds a Structural Consistency Loss ($\mathcal{L}_{SC}$) based on a matrix of mutually exclusive predicates. Developing CoupledSGA revealed a limitation of the evaluation protocol. With-Constraint evaluation keeps one predicate per group for each subject-object pair, so its R@K and mR@K cannot capture the within-group violations targeted by $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$: we prove they are unchanged whenever each group's winning predicate and its score are held fixed. We further show that the gradient of $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$ depends on predicate scores rather than ground-truth labels: for two-predicate rules it amplifies the ordering the model already holds, and when all scores in a group are equal it suppresses predicates in more exclusion rules more strongly, explaining why the penalty can lower recall while improving consistency. On Action Genome, activating $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$ after two warm-up epochs reduces R@20 from 42.21% to 35.18% while lowering the No-Constraint contradiction rate from 45.92% to 4.07% (matched-budget R@20: 40.48% CoupledSGA vs. 44.78% SceneSayerODE). CoupledSGA is a testbed, not a state-of-the-art claim: With-Constraint recall captures the cost of enforcing structural consistency but not the improvement. We recommend reporting No-Constraint results alongside a contradiction rate for methods that constrain predicate co-activation.
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.CL
Balancing hierarchical representation and quantization: A performance trade-off in text embeddings
Kai Ponel, Marco Polignano, Erasmo Purificato and 4 more
Hierarchical text embedding models offer variable-length representations, while quantization reduces numerical precision; both aim to improve computational efficiency. This work is an empirical benchmark study of how these two orthogonal, already-established techniques interact. We evaluate 38 tasks from the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) using four transformer-based embedding models, covering 1D and 2D hierarchical representations combined with 32-bit, 8-bit, and binary quantization, for 168 configurations per task. We report each efficiency dimension separately: theoretical per-vector storage and end-to-end evaluation time. Under a Friedman test with Nemenyi post-hoc analysis, int8 quantization is statistically indistinguishable from float32 for pair classification and re-ranking and costs at most 1.5 percentage points overall, whereas binary quantization is significantly worse across every task category. Halving the embedding dimension once is not statistically detectable above $m=16$; two successive halvings always are. Combining an 8x dimensionality reduction with int8 yields a 32x reduction in per-vector storage at 94.4% of baseline effectiveness. Because evaluation times were measured once, we treat them as indicative: we find no evidence that quantization speeds up evaluation, whereas sampling from intermediate layers shortens it substantially. Retrieval degrades far faster than every other category, so we report findings per task category.
#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.