#01Nov 6, 2026
hep-lat
Machine learning for lattice QCD
Gurtej Kanwar, Scott Lawrence, Alessandro Nada and 1 more
Machine learning (ML) methods have been explored as a means of optimizing lattice field theory calculations, with increasing interest in recent years. This chapter gives an introduction and summary to the use of ML methods to optimize lattice field theory without introducing any uncontrolled approximations. We focus on those directions which are clearly established as of late 2025, marking the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the study of lattice gauge theory. This chapter is a contribution to the online book ``Lattice QCD at 50 years,'' (LQCD@50), edited by Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Maarten Golterman, Rajan Gupta, Laurent Lellouch, and Steve Sharpe.
#02Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
On the Reliability of Majority-Vote Pseudo-Labels in Test-Time Reinforcement Learning
Haoyu Wang, Ru Wang, Yuanyuan Wang and 2 more
Test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) adapts pretrained language models to unlabeled target-domain data using self-generated pseudo-labels, whose reliability remains poorly understood. We analyze majority-vote supervision for TTRL with online Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and decompose its error into population-majority bias and prompt-dependent finite-rollout variation. Because population-majority bias is generally unidentifiable without external supervision, we focus on mitigating the downstream effects of finite-rollout variation. We propose \emph{Prompt-Conditional Distributionally Robust DPO (PC-Dr.DPO)}, which conditions within-prompt robust reweighting on observed vote reliability to make updates from sampling-sensitive prompts more conservative. We further introduce a cache-based mechanism to reduce self-supervised forgetting during online adaptation. Across six mathematical and knowledge-intensive reasoning benchmarks and five model backbones, PC-Dr.DPO matches or outperforms the strongest TTRL baseline in 24 of 30 settings.
#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.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.
#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%.