#01Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
Fifty-Two Shades of Pig: What the UCR Archive Really Asks Classifiers to Do
Omar Swelam, Jaris Küken, Shi Bin Hoo and 2 more
The pigs were bleeding. That was the point of the experiment: could airway pressure reveal hemorrhage before it became critical? In the UCR Time Series Classification Archive, the de facto benchmark for Time Series Classification (TSC), the same recordings ask a different question: "which of 52 pigs produced this trace?". The dataset PigAirwayPressure is not an outlier. Although the archive is the standard benchmark, whether its tasks resemble the problems TSC is meant to solve has rarely been examined. We find that several datasets are repurposed from their original task, built from toy setups, or have flawed test splits. We further question how representative the archive's ordered non-temporal sequences (e.g. spectra, shape outlines) are of real TSC, and the potential downsides from the decomposition of multivariate problems. Our findings call for more careful interpretation of archive-wide scores and greater attention to deployment-relevant evaluation. The audit is at https://github.com/automl/ucr-provenance-audit.
#02Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Ensemble Methodology for Reference-Free Confidence Estimation in LLM-based Code Summarization
Marco Colombo, Balaji A Jayaram, Sowmyakumari Selvaraj and 5 more
This paper describes an approach and use case to estimate the correctness of LLM-generated COBOL summaries without access to human-authored references. The core intuition is that inter-model agreement on semantics is informative about truth, and that an LLM-as-judge can provide higher-fidelity pairwise assessments than traditional string- or embedding-based metrics. We operationalise this intuition with (i) controlled summary generation from diverse models; (ii) a LLM evaluator that compares pairs of summaries and emits structured judgments; and (iii) a calibrated aggregation rule that combines supportive evidence while penalising only corroborated contradictions.
#03Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Can Agentic Systems Close the Gap in Radiology with Production AI Tools?
Aubin Charley, Julien Khlaut, Charles Corbière and 3 more
Radiology AI has developed along two paths: specialized models that perform well on narrow tasks but cover few clinical findings, and generalist models that address a broader range of tasks but remain prone to hallucination and inaccurate measurements. Combining the two through agentic systems offers a route towards comprehensive radiology reporting, but published systems are tied to one modality or body part. We describe a radiology agentic framework that standardizes how an orchestrator calls modular tools to produce a structured report, and use it to measure what such a system can do with the tools from FDA-cleared radiology AI devices. Report generation is simulated on a large multi-modality report corpus, with the orchestrator given either a catalog of finding classes consolidated from the cleared devices, each available on the modalities it is cleared for, or an unlimited catalog in which any class can be requested, and planning either from the clinical indication or from the target report. Tool outputs are simulated from the reference report, so the comparison isolates tool availability and orchestration from tool error. With the cleared catalog and the indication alone, the orchestrator recovers under a third of the clinically actionable findings; recovery improves substantially with the unlimited catalog, and further when the plan is written from the target report. Attributing every missed finding to a cause shows that most are classes no cleared device offers for the study's modality, and that a third are classes or tools that were offered and not called. Adding the most frequently missing tools closes most of the gap to the unlimited catalog on held-out reports, whereas a smaller orchestrator with the unlimited catalog gives up the whole gain. Tool availability and effective orchestration are thus complementary constraints on comprehensive AI-assisted radiology reporting.
#04Nov 6, 2026
cs.CV
Graded convolutional networks: scale invariance without the scale and robustness to unknown blur
Tanush Shaska
The Gaussian jet of an image is a graded vector space: a dilation by $λ$ multiplies derivatives of order $k$ by $λ^{-k}$. Local graded convolutions are exactly homogeneous differential operators, and a local feature is dilation-invariant if and only if it factors through the scale-normalized jet or, without the scale, through the retraction onto the weighted sphere of the grading. Under unknown Gaussian blur the retraction changes only by a change of scale, whereas the scale-normalized jet acquires a grading factor that no radial normalization removes. At the zero jet the retraction separates image families that radial normalizations and continuous classifiers cannot. Networks built on the retraction are universal for invariant features. On MNIST such a network keeps 88.4% accuracy under a two-pixel blur, against 66.2% for the same network on scale-normalized derivatives; in Lindeberg's Gaussian derivative network the retraction raises accuracy at that blur from 91.5% to 95.1%.
#05Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Knowing When to Intervene: Causal Evaluation of AI Agents
Ayush Sawarni, Wenqian Xing, Tijana Zrnic and 2 more
Current evaluations of agentic AI systems primarily rely on benchmarks. However, the static nature of benchmarks makes them uninformative about the value of auditing interventions at deployment time. For reliable deployment, we often need to determine within an agent's trajectory whether or not to intervene, e.g., by verifying the agent's current output or steering it toward different behavior, using either human review or more costly models or time-consuming agentic supervision. The value of such interventions is fundamentally a causal inference question, asking whether the causal effect of such an intervention is beneficial for the final outcome. Estimating this causal effect is particularly challenging due to the dynamic nature of the problem: the impact of an intervention depends on the current context and environment, as well as the agent's future behavior. We develop the first methodologically grounded framework for evaluating the causal effects of randomized interventions within agent trajectories. By leveraging a relatively small dataset of agent trajectories collected under randomized interventions such as verification or screening, we can estimate the dynamic causal effect of a rich class of (contextual) intervention policies. The structural parameters that we estimate can also be used to construct safety leaderboards that capture the risk of various agentic actions, which can be used by practitioners for audit prioritization. Applying our methods to tau-bench Retail, ToolSandbox, and ImpossibleBench, we find that intervention effects vary substantially across agent actions and states. More broadly, our work suggests a rich research agenda at the intersection of causal inference and agentic evaluation, which we believe is essential for the reliable and safe deployment of AI agents in the real world.