#01Nov 6, 2026
cs.CV
GRAC: Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Captioning for Surgical Scene Description
Rochak Dhakal, Chen Zhao, Soup Cobb and 3 more
Purpose: Surgical operative reports support procedural documentation, surgical training, performance assessment, and workflow review. However, extracting meaningful information often requires extensive manual review and clinical expertise. Automated surgical scene descriptions could reduce this burden by leveraging recurring surgical activities and prior knowledge. Methods: We propose GRAC (Graph-Based Retrieval-Augmented Captioning), a framework that represents surgical scenes as graphs capturing relationships among instruments, actions, and anatomical structures. Given an input scene graph, GRAC learns to retrieve relevant graph-caption pairs from training data. It compares instrument-tissue interactions between retrieved examples and the input scene, using comparison features to condition retrieved-caption representations during generation. Results: On the EndoVis-18 benchmark, GRAC achieved a CIDEr-D of 5.88, compared with 4.23 for SGT and 3.36 for the strongest conventional Transformer baseline. Exact instrument-action-target triplet-set accuracy reached 52.6%, compared with 32.7% for SGT and 26.2% for the strongest conventional baseline. These results demonstrate improvements in language quality and factual agreement. On TORS, GRAC achieved a CIDEr-D of 5.06, compared with 3.80 for the strongest baseline. Conclusion: GRAC demonstrates that combining structured surgical scene representations with retrieved examples improves surgical scene captioning and produces more contextually meaningful descriptions.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Test-Time Compute Scales Better with Parallel Agent Teams
Junlin Wang, Haozhe Chen, Ang Li and 2 more
Test-time scaling improves the performance of a fixed model by spending more computation at inference. There are two common ways to spend it on agents when a verifier can score every attempt. Best-of-N sampling runs many independent agents and keeps the best result but saturates quickly. One large team of collaborating agents can score higher but stops improving as it grows. Can we get the best of both? Our method, parallel agent teams, does so by sampling many small teams in parallel and keeping the best team's result. We test it on 12 long-horizon tasks from GPU kernels and formal proofs to exploit development. With a 27B model and a budget of 100 agents, parallel teams of ten beat parallel agents on 10 of 12 tasks and beat one team of 100 on all four tasks where we ran such large teams. At equal dollar cost the same parallel teams beat a frontier model on half the tasks. A simple statistical model shows that individual agents lose because their many samples have a low mean and that one large team loses because a single sample gets no gain from variance. Sampling many small teams in parallel balances a high mean with the gain from variance. Parallel agent teams thus offer a more effective way to scale test-time compute.
#04Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
From PAC bounds on the generalization error to PAC bounds on the parameter estimation error
Mihaly Petreczky, John Leth, Emma Lukacs and 1 more
Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) bounds on the generalization error (the difference between the empirical prediction error computed on the training data and its expectation) are an established tool in statistical machine learning, and there have been several extensions of these bounds to dynamical systems. In parallel, in recent years, there has been growing interest in finite-sample bounds for parameter estimation error in system identification. The latter bounds tend to be algorithm-specific, relying on reformulating the identification algorithm as a least-squares regression problem. This is in contrast to classical PAC bounds, which are algorithm-agnostic and can be applied to any identification algorithm based on minimizing a cost function involving the empirical loss. In this paper, we show how oracle bounds derived from PAC bounds can be used to derive finite-sample bounds for dynamical systems. As an illustration of this approach, we present finite-sample parameter-estimation bounds for linear and bilinear systems with bounded inputs and noise. These bounds apply to identification algorithms based on minimizing a regularized empirical loss function. The key ingredient is to establish an oracle inequality, i.e., an inequality between the true prediction error of the learned model and the minimum achievable true prediction error, and then use either the convexity of the true loss or system-theoretic properties of the loss function to derive bounds on the parameter estimation error. We also analyze the rates of the obtained bounds and compare them with those of classical asymptotic results.
#05Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
The Cost of Coverage: Conformalising Native Forecast Uncertainty for GB Wind Power
Carl Somers
Uncertainty bands on wind forecasts help inform reserve sizing and commitments, but often fail to deliver their stated coverage. We apply conformal prediction to native bands to see what it adds and what it costs, comparing six forecasters, from ARIMA to a tabular foundation model, at two wind farms in Great Britain (GB) under operational conditions. We show that calibration repairs empirical marginal coverage with little or no Winkler Score penalty, but this apparent success conceals under-coverage in high winds. Calibrating by forecast wind regime turns marginal coverage into regime-level coverage, cutting day-ahead out-of-band volume in high winds by over 40% relative to pooled calibration while narrowing bands overall.