#01Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Sage-A1.5: From Long-Horizon Execution to Scientific Exploration with Capability Composition
Wenjie Lou, Tianshuo Peng, Shiyang Feng and 96 more
In this report, we introduce Sage-A1.5, a 35B Mixture-of-Experts agentic model that builds on A1 to advance long-horizon problem solving through adaptive capability composition. Compared with A1, Sage-A1.5 learns not only to solve individual tasks, but also to organize work and revise its approach during execution. Sage-A1.5 highlights three improvements: agentic orchestration, verification, and open scientific discovery. First, agentic orchestration extends single-agent execution through task delegation and parallel collaboration among subagents with isolated contexts, enabling complex tasks to be decomposed and addressed concurrently and supporting efficient execution while reducing interference across concurrent subagents. Second, agentic verification strengthens long-horizon reliability through progress checking, evidence validation, and reflective strategy revision, allowing the agent to recognize unproductive search paths and pursue alternative approaches. Third, open scientific discovery extends agentic capabilities beyond answering predefined questions to conducting exploratory research, connecting scientific inquiry with interactive analysis and inspectable research artifacts. We showcase these capabilities through complicated agentic tasks and multidisciplinary scientific applications. Besides, we hope Sage-A1.5 provides the community with an accessible foundation for open scientific discovery, offering a practical path from long-horizon task execution to collaborative, verifiable, and inspectable scientific exploration.
#02Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Evolving Semantic Indexes for Generative Retrieval
Jinming Nian, Jyun-Yu Jiang, Henry Tsai and 2 more
Generative retrieval (GR) casts search and recommendation as autoregressive generation of discrete semantic identifiers (SIDs). SID design largely determines GR quality, but its discrete, interdependent components (SID construction, collision handling, decoding, and training) cannot be optimized end-to-end with gradients and remain largely hand-designed. We introduce a framework that improves these components through LLM-driven evolutionary program search, to our knowledge the first application of this approach to GR. A locally served, open-weight 31B model mutates executable GR components, so no proprietary LLM API is used, and a 1M-parameter proxy decoder provides fast feedback in place of repeatedly training the 1B target generator. Across 21 SID programs on NQ320K, proxy and target Recall@100 show strong rank correlation (Spearman $ρ= 0.90$). Guided by this proxy, evolution improves the seed GR on NQ320K, MSMARCO300K, and a multilingual e-commerce dataset under a fixed training recipe. On NQ320K, jointly evolving SID construction and collision handling improves Recall@1 from 55.8% to 59.3% and Recall@100 from 85.8% to 90.6%. A component study shows that proxy reliability depends on what is evolved: improvements transfer reliably for the semantic index but not for the generator's training objective or the full pipeline. LLM-driven evolutionary search is thus a practical tool for GR design, provided proxy reliability is established for the chosen search space.
#03Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
What Do RTL Repair Benchmarks Actually Measure?
Yeyin Eva Zhu, Rishabh Ranawat
RTL repair benchmarks should measure whether a model can fix broken RTL given a specification. To this end, we construct and hash-bind RTLRepairDataset, 5,784 (broken, fixed) training pairs; RTLRepairBench, 459 held-out cases with 374 syntactic and 85 behavioral mutations; and an evaluation harness supporting simulation and formal equivalence. We then use this infrastructure to identify two measurement confounds. First, simulation and formal scoring give opposite signs for the apparent effect of providing a specification in one evaluated cohort; reset-aware rescoring attributes almost all of the simulation-formal disagreement to reset and first-cycle comparison semantics. Second, on 274 mined model failures, the specification-only minus specification-conditioned recovery point estimate ranges from -8.5 to +18.3 percentage points across six models. Thus, a conventional repair score need not isolate whether the model used the faulty RTL. We translate these findings into evaluation controls: report initialization, reset, first-cycle, and unknown-value semantics; disclose oracle coverage and undecided cases; and include a specification-only baseline. Together, the resources and audit provide both a benchmark for behavioral repair and a protocol for diagnosing what contributes to its measured score. We release the benchmark, the training set, construction code, sanitized aggregate evidence, and reproduction materials at https://github.com/Evaaaz/RTLRepairBench.
#04Oct 20, 2026
cs.CV
Joints, Camera, Action! Co-Generating 3D Motion and Video for Arbitrary Rigs
Noam Rotstein, Yoad Tewel, Chen Tessler and 5 more
Video generation models can now depict remarkably realistic motion. Yet it is unclear how to use this motion beyond pixels: to animate a specific 3D asset and replay the animation in its 3D scene. For instance, a video model can show a monkey jumping over a crossbar, but it cannot return that jump as replayable 3D motion placed in the 3D scene. Here we present a model that directly co-generates the video and 3D motion for any supplied rig, along with a camera that registers this motion to the scene. Prior video-motion models either handle only human skeletons, often adding billions of parameters, or triangulate 3D motion from generated 2D pose maps. We instead keep 3D motion in a separate model that supports arbitrary skeletons, and connect it to a pretrained video model through a small set of cross-attention layers. This separation lets the motion model first learn how skeletons move from motion-only data, which is easier to obtain and augment than paired video. Additionally, our model learns to locate each joint in the video frames, which lets us recover the camera and place the 3D motion in the scene. To train across many skeletons, we use a generative video editor to place animated 3D assets in scenes suited to their actions, curating the edits so their known motion remains valid. Together with human and robot video, this yields nearly 200K training pairs. Our evaluations demonstrate that our model animates diverse rigs from text more faithfully than video-first pipelines, and its motion responds to the surrounding scene. It also turns video into rig motion, rig motion into video, and enables keyframe-based control of the 3D motion. Videos and additional results are available on our project page: https://research.nvidia.com/labs/par/projects/jca/.
#05Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Humans Correct Their Judgments Through Debate, but Weaker AI Models Do Not
Maria Victoria Carro, Denise Alejandra Mester, Facundo Nieto and 14 more
How can we effectively oversee AI systems that surpass human intelligence? AI Safety via Debate proposes that two AI systems argue opposing positions and a judge, either a human or a weaker model, decides which is correct. By facilitating supervisors in providing high-quality training signals, debate aims to encourage truthful and safe behavior from AI systems whose capabilities exceed our own. However, human judgment is not neutral: people often rely on biases which advanced AI systems may learn to exploit. Drawing on insights from collective intelligence and social cognition, this paper investigates whether debate can guide human and LLM supervisors toward the truth despite their prior beliefs. We evaluate several protocol configurations. We also explore setups inspired by the wisdom of the crowd such as the number and diversity of judges, as well as interaction mechanisms including deliberation and voting. Overall, we find that debate increases accuracy relative to prior beliefs for human judges, whereas the consultancy baseline, in which a single expert argues for one answer, does not. For weaker language models, however, the results are mixed: debate provides no comparable gains in most settings and can even reduce accuracy. Among multi-judge protocols, weighted voting produces the highest accuracy for human supervisors, whereas for LLMs none of them significantly improves group accuracy, even as the number of judges increases. Notably, the behavior of minority judges in non-diverse deliberation protocols suggests that, under symmetric settings, incorrect positions could be more persuasive than correct ones. These findings support debate as a viable path toward scalable human oversight, but cast doubt on its benefits for weaker AI supervisors, raising concerns about fully automated training and control pipelines in high-stakes settings.