#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.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.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 6, 2026
cs.CL
Are These Programmers Ripe Enough to Eat? Evaluating How LLMs Handle Lexical Knowledge Conflicts in Translation
Dongxu Wu, Sara Court, Micha Elsner
External lexical resources can help large language models (LLMs) translate texts in low-resource languages and specialized domains, but these resources may conflict with models' prior lexical knowledge. To isolate this conflict, we construct a controlled Mandarin-to-English translation task in which familiar source words are assigned new meanings within and across semantic categories. We treat these prompt-supplied meanings as contextual knowledge (CK) and systematically evaluate the effects of word frequency, sentence context, and prompt framing on the translated outputs. Across nine models, CK reliance is greater for less frequent source words and in sentence contexts that support the supplied meanings. Prompt framing can reduce CK reliance, but seven of nine models favor CK even when explicitly instructed to ignore the supplied meanings. Within model families, larger models are more likely than smaller models to utilize CK in their outputs. Three follow-up experiments further show that modal weakening lowers CK reliance, the effect of repetition depends on prompt layout, and the effect of reasoning varies across models. Overall, our controlled study reveals how CK reliance varies across conditions and models, motivating new methods to detect and evaluate lexical conflicts and guide models' lexical choices in LLM-based translation.
#05Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Maya a1: Do the Options Read the Model, or Does Their Position? Order Sensitivity in a Non-Autoregressive Decision Model
Mohammed Nayeem Khan, Logesh L
Laya answers typed multiple-choice questions in one forward pass by scoring a hidden state at one [MASK] marker per option. We re-engineer the checkpoint (421M parameters; a 2-layer option head with no positional tensor; a documented but unused parallel layout) and test whether the answer depends on where an option is listed. Presenting 951 Qwen-verified questions under every cyclic rotation of their options (or six random permutations for 12 options), the released checkpoint changes its answer for 25.8% [22.9-28.7] of questions (19.7% on the 605 English-language items alone); accuracy with the gold option first versus last differs by 10.1 points, and the flips concentrate where the model's own confidence is low (54% versus 8% across confidence terciles). Fine-tuning with Laya's trainer on 2,818 teacher-verified rows with option shuffling cuts the flip rate to 7.2%; the identical rows without shuffling give 11.4%, so shuffling is responsible for 4.2 points of the improvement. A confidence-weighted vote over orderings gives 69.7% against 69.1% for a single base pass at 4.1x the compute. Labels are LLM-made and the test sets are teacher-filtered. We also fine-tune with the authors' parallel layout on the same rows: flip rate 0.5%.