#01Nov 4, 2026
cs.RO
Perceptive Humanoid Motion from Simulation
Siyuan Hu, Abulikemu Abuduweili, Yue Meng and 5 more
Humanoid robots have the potential to automate a wide range of physical tasks. Progress toward generalist humanoid autonomy, however, remains constrained by a data bottleneck: mapping pixels and free-form language to low-level joint commands requires paired supervision, and no corpus of such data exists at sufficiently large scale. Some approaches rely on human teleoperation and wearable capture devices, which require at least an hour of human time to produce an hour of data. We present HALO, a humanoid autonomy system powered by a pipeline that synthesizes vision-language-motion data across a thousand procedurally generated homes. The corpus scales with compute rather than human labor. HALO acquires a repertoire of physical skills, including sitting on chairs, navigating to named objects, stepping sideways through half-open doors, crouching and crawling beneath tables, and pushing boxes. It orchestrates these skills to solve composite, long-horizon tasks. Without ever seeing a real home during training, HALO transfers zero-shot to the physical world, achieving a 91% success rate across 360 trials in six unmapped real-world environments. See https://apple-aiml-research.github.io/ml-halo/ for code and videos.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 4, 2026
stat.ML
Alignment Myopia in Generative AI
Remi Denton, Aida Davani, Cynthia L Bennett and 3 more
Current generative AI alignment relies on a myopic paradigm that prioritizes immediate conversational satisfaction. By relying on short-horizon feedback, this approach ignores the profound, longitudinal externalities of persistent human-AI interaction, which can lead to adverse outcomes such as cognitive atrophy, social erosion, and diminished human agency. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift toward long-horizon alignment that accounts for how AI reshapes human experience over time. To this end, we map the tensions between near-term utility and long-term costs of AI use across four facets of human well-being to reveal outcomes that current reward models fail to capture. Ultimately, we advocate for moving beyond simple preference optimization toward alignment strategies that actively foster long-term human well-being by navigating these complex temporal scales.
#05Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Continual Classification Beyond the Kernel Regime: Harnessing the Sparsity Bias of L2 Regularization in Diagonal Linear Networks
Gilad Karpel, Itay Evron, Ron Meir and 1 more
We study logistic regression for continual learning with linear predictors in a high-dimensional statistical setting. Existing theoretical work has largely focused on continual linear regression with variants of L2 regularization, motivated by their analytical simplicity and connection to the kernel regime of neural networks. We first derive the optimal L2 regularization strength for continual linear classification and characterize its generalization performance, recovering behavior analogous to prior results for continual linear regression. Next, we examine the effect of L2 regularization in deeper models using a minimal two-layer diagonal linear network. In the single-task setting, L2 regularization on the weights of such models is known to promote sparsity in the resulting predictor, yielding a rich, sparse feature-learning regime beyond the kernel regime (a similar effect arises in two-layer ReLU networks). However, in continual learning, where L2 regularization is typically centered on previous-task weights, this sparsity bias is no longer preserved. We therefore propose a weighted variant of L2 regularization that extends this beneficial sparsity bias to continual learning. We show theoretically and empirically that, for a sufficiently sparse teacher, our variant converges substantially faster than directly learning a linear predictor with conventional continual L2 or L1 regularization, trading some long-horizon bias for markedly improved performance over moderate task horizons.