ML Reads

Personal arXiv list

ML papers to read today.

Pick a topic and keep a small daily list of papers worth opening.

Refresh queueDaily mix

Today's queue

5 papers

#01Nov 4, 2026

cs.AI

ConceptARC at Scale: Studying Conceptual Understanding in Reasoning Models

Philipp Mondorf, Adrien Deliège, Solim LeGris and 5 more

Large reasoning models (LRMs) perform well on challenging benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether they form generalizable abstractions across conceptually related reasoning tasks. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) provides a controlled testbed for studying abstraction, requiring solvers to infer transformation rules over two-dimensional grids from a small set of examples. While ARC evaluates rule abstraction within individual tasks, different tasks may share higher-level structure despite requiring different transformations$\unicode{x2014}$for example, several tasks may involve reasoning about objects contained within other objects. Benchmarks such as ConceptARC capture this structure by grouping ARC-style tasks into recurring spatial and semantic concepts, but they often contain only a few manually constructed tasks per concept. We introduce ConceptARC at Scale, a generator for creating thousands of ARC-style tasks targeting a specific concept. Using this generator, we construct ConceptARC-100, a dataset of 1,600 new, manually reviewed tasks, with 100 tasks for each of the 16 concepts defined by ConceptARC$\unicode{x2014}$ten times the size of the original benchmark. We evaluate a range of recent LRMs and models trained from scratch on ConceptARC-100 to characterize which concepts they solve reliably and where they struggle. We further analyze the models' internal representations and find clear semantic structure: task representations cluster according to the operations applied to objects, such as recoloring, removal, or translation, even when realized through substantially different rules and scenarios. Together, our results suggest that models form stable abstractions of transformation operations that generalize across diverse tasks.

#02Nov 4, 2026

cs.CV

Visual Token Routing: Learning to keep tokens that matter

Pranjal Aggarwal, Sean Welleck

Computer-use agents (CUAs) have recently achieved superhuman performance on several long-horizon benchmarks. However, their computational cost limits their use in long-horizon tasks and real-time domains such as video games. A key bottleneck is representing each screenshot as thousands of visual tokens, which accumulate into long contexts as agents reason over extended interaction histories. We observe that most of these visual tokens are either semantically irrelevant to the agent's next action or temporally redundant across screenshots. Building on this observation, we introduce Visual Token Routing (VTR), a joint training framework for learning sparse visual representations that preserve the information needed for action prediction. In VTR, we train the vision-language model together with a lightweight spatio-temporal router that examines each image region in the current and previous screenshots and decides whether its visual token enters the language model. We optimize the router using an adaptive loss to keep the number of visual tokens as small as possible while minimizing performance degradation. With just 2,000 training steps, VTR matches the performance of the full-resolution model on OSWorld, CUA-World, and video game action prediction, while using 2.5-5.8x fewer visual tokens. These savings reduce inference cost by up to 3.3x and speed up prefill by up to 2.9x. VTR also outperforms lowering the image resolution and other baselines for dropping tokens, by up to 12.8 points on OSWorld. Overall, VTR enables computer-use agents to process only the visual tokens they need, allowing them to be used in long-horizon tasks and real-time domains at a fraction of the computational cost. Code and models are available at https://pranjal2041.github.io/vtr

#03Nov 4, 2026

math.ST

Regularization vs. Convolution in Kernel-Based Hypothesis Testing

Omar Hagrass, Bharath K. Sriperumbudur

The maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) test is a popular nonparametric test on general domains. Two lines of work have studied its optimality through structurally different approaches. The first, a convolution approach on $\mathbb{R}^d$, uses translation-invariant kernels with a shrinking bandwidth and is minimax optimal over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation; the second, a regularization approach on general measurable spaces, uses spectral regularization of the kernel covariance operator and is minimax optimal over Hellinger- and $χ^2$-separated alternatives. In this paper, we study the regularization approach over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation, which reveals the connection between the two approaches. We show that, with a translation-invariant kernel on $\mathbb{R}^d$, both are ways of meeting a single condition on the kernel's spectral density: the spectral regularized discrepancy captures the $L^2$-separation $Δ$ of a Sobolev alternative of smoothness $s$ as soon as the regularization parameter $λ$ is below the spectral density on frequencies up to $Δ^{-1/(2s)}$. A kernel with a shrinking bandwidth $h$ meets this condition with $λ\asymp h^d$, and under this coupling the constant regularizer, which gives the MMD test itself, attains the Sobolev minimax rate. This explains, from a spectral perspective, the need for a shrinking bandwidth in the convolution approach. With a non-constant spectral regularizer, our analysis requires the bandwidth to shrink only when the spectral density decays faster than any polynomial, as for the Gaussian kernel. Thus, for Matérn and Laplace kernels, a fixed bandwidth with $λ\to 0$ attains the Sobolev minimax rate. Finally, an adaptive test over a grid of bandwidths and regularization parameters is minimax optimal, up to a $\log\log$ factor, over both classes without prior knowledge of the smoothness.

#04Nov 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.

#05Nov 4, 2026

cs.LG

Transforming Integer Grids to Spatial Intuition: Perception, Not Planning, Governs ARC-AGI-3

Harsidak Singh Banwait

Sample-efficient fluid intelligence requires agents that rapidly form working models of unfamiliar interactive environments. ARC-AGI-3 tests this across uninstructed visual games scored by Relative Human Action Efficiency, which penalizes exploratory waste quadratically. When frontier models read raw integer grids, serialization destroys spatial topology, and they spend hundreds of actions rediscovering basic boundaries and symmetries. We introduce SARBLOH, an open-weight agent built on the premise that spatial perception, not planning capacity, governs interactive reasoning on ARC-AGI-3. A zero-parameter O(HW) perception engine turns each frame, in 35 ms, into an object inventory with bipartite temporal tracking, a geometric briefing that separates proven invariants from affordance hypotheses, and an annotated canvas. Paired with a code-as-action runtime, the agent writes algorithmic hypotheses instead of low-level moves. Across eight presentations, grounded perception raises the rubric score from 3/28 to 25/28 points while cutting token use by 89.4%. On 23 held-out games, geometric invariants generalize with 100% accuracy, while single-frame affordance guesses fall to 6-50%, so active verification probes remain necessary. On the public set, Run A (briefing off) solved 143 of 183 levels in 8.2 hours at 59.4% single-pass efficiency; Run B (briefing on) reached 63.5%. Within the nine-hour budget on one Kaggle RTX PRO 6000 GPU, SARBLOH scored 16.53 on the hidden Kaggle evaluation, 13.7x the first Milestone winner.