#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
A Hidden Markov Preference Model for Online Prediction of Adversary Actions
Angel Daruna, Michael Cogswell, Tixiao Shan and 3 more
A defender anticipating an attacker needs a probability distribution over the attacker's next action from information available before that action occurs. Two structures complicate this: the attacker's behavioral regime persists and can switch within an episode, and each action combines an operation with state-dependent arguments whose feasible values change over time. We capture both with a hidden Markov model whose latent state is the active regime and whose regime-conditioned action law is defined on a feasibility-masked tree of executable actions. The same likelihood forms the next-action distribution and updates the regime belief once the action is seen, and a partially observed prefix contributes its resolved local factors. Estimation separates into convex logistic fits that Baum-Welch reuses when regimes are unlabeled. We derive a reach-weighted nodewise KL expression for regime information, a sequence-wise log-loss bound for switching regime paths, and a uniform fallback guarantee. On the CAGE 2 cyber defense benchmark the filtered latent state is worth 0.8 nats per step, and after a controller switch the loss begins to fall in three steps against ten for a recurrent baseline.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Towards interpreting any residual stream direction by scaling activation inversion
Celeste De Schamphelaere, Juan J. Vazquez, Ari Spiesberger and 4 more
To interpret a direction in a language model's residual stream, we can look for text that strongly activates it. But when such text is found by scanning a corpus, it is limited to what that corpus contains. We develop Maximally-Activating Example Metamodels (MAEMs), language models which map residual stream directions from a subject model to text exemplars that strongly activate those directions. Our objective is to maximise the cosine similarity of a supplied residual stream direction with the activations of the text generated by the MAEM. This label-free RL objective helps to scale MAEMs on diverse sources of residual stream directions. Empirically, we find the resultant metamodel produces informative exemplars: a Qwen3.6-27B MAEM inverts held-out activations better than corpus search or a natural-language autoencoder (NLA), beats corpus search (at 10M tokens) on a majority of held-out languages/domains, and activates 89% of held-out SAE features. It also identifies concepts behind steering vectors about as well as NLAs, recovers the payloads of LoRA backdoors more often than corpus search, and can even verbalise some model workspace inner monologue. Unlike explanations produced by other metamodels (e.g. NLAs), MAEM exemplars can be verified with a forward pass on the subject model, making the MAEM objective a grounded alternative for scaling the training of metamodels.
#04Nov 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.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
Where and Why is Grounded Reasoning Useful?
David Yan, Le Xue, Forrest Huang and 4 more
Grounded reasoning, where a model outputs text coordinates of relevant locations in chain-of-thought reasoning, is a common strategy for solving complex visual reasoning problems. However, the benefits and limitations of grounded reasoning are understudied. We study where and why grounded reasoning is most useful. To do so, we introduce a chain-of-thought analysis method to measure how much a model uses its outputted grounding in its thinking trace and perform a detailed ablation study of a grounded reasoning training recipe. We find that grounded reasoning improves counting but shows no significant gain over baselines without coordinate grounding across a wide range of spatial reasoning and perception benchmarks. Using several synthetic tasks, we show that grounded reasoning is most useful when a task requires undescribable references, which are visual concepts that are difficult to describe in language. However, we observe that many existing visual reasoning benchmarks are solvable with only describable text references. To close this gap, we introduce BrickVision, a new benchmark that requires undescribable visual references to solve.