#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
Edge-Assisted Crowdsensing for Explainable Cyclist Safety Perception
Hongsen Cao, Chia-Yen Chiang, Mona Jaber and 2 more
Cyclist fatality rates remain high despite policy support for active travel, and autonomous vehicles add complexity to mixed traffic. Neither crash statistics nor multi-model detection pipelines scale to continuous monitoring of perceived safety along a route. We present an edge-assisted crowdsensing system: handlebar cameras supply street-level frames, a vision-language model (VLM) turns each frame into structured traffic attributes through a single prompt, and an explainable boosting machine (EBM) combines them with OpenStreetMap road infrastructure and on-bike kinematics to predict a crowdsourced 1-9 safety score. Extraction belongs at the network edge: the fastest self-hosted model needs 2.49 s per frame and scoring takes 0.4 ms on a CPU. On 1,362 annotated frames from two London routes, the EBM regressor reaches 72.2 percent binary accuracy and a mean absolute error of 1.011 under five-fold cross-validation. It is within one accuracy point of black-box ensembles. Its per-feature shape functions give exact attribution: physical lane separation is worth +0.97 rating points, a painted lane +0.70 and a construction site -0.65. Planners can therefore price an infrastructure change in rating points, and the results enter cost-benefit analysis directly. We also report inter-annotator agreement (alpha = 0.4695), an attribute audit, and a sensitivity analysis linking attribute error to accuracy. With re-encoding, a 20 s sampling interval serves 1,000 riders at 54 Mbit/s at a cost of 1.4 accuracy points, making continuous monitoring practical.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
The Gold Rush in AI4Math, II: What are signatures of AI-assisted Proofs?
Yuanchuan Guo, Jiashun Jin, Zheng Tracy Ke and 1 more
The growing use of AI in mathematics raises a question: can we detect AI involvement in proofs, separately from AI assistance with writing? Historical arXiv papers, recent papers disclosing substantive AI use, and manuscripts released by OpenAI provide a rich empirical basis for studying this question. However, several challenges remain: lack of matched case-control pairs; potential incompleteness of disclosure; and lack of ready-to-use features designed to capture signals of AI involvement in proofs. To address these challenges, we construct five cohorts comprising 8,281 papers by combining existing manuscripts with those we produced using generative AI. These cohorts span different levels of AI involvement and include matched pairs of papers addressing the same research problems. We then introduce ProofTrace, a framework that represents each paper as a graph of immediate proof support (GIPS) and extracts interpretable features of mathematical organization. Our study yields three discoveries. First, principal-component projections of our features reveal a qualitative gradient of AI involvement, where AI-reworded papers remain close to human papers, the two AI-generated cohorts depart in broadly shared directions, and papers disclosing substantive AI use occupy intermediate positions which shifts toward AI-generated cohorts over time. Second, we identify recurring signatures of AI-generated proofs, such as fewer externally cited results, greater reliance on intermediate conclusions, and altered graph connectivity; many of these signatures persist under controls for research field, manuscript length, or graph size. Finally, in a separate detection experiment, ProofTrace distinguishes human-written papers from those disclosing substantive AI use. Its performance remains stable under AI rewording, whereas the performance of state-of-the-art text-based detectors declines sharply.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.RO
Social Humanoid: Socially Responsive Human-Humanoid Interaction
Vongani H. Maluleke, James Ni, Kie Horiuchi and 7 more
Humanoid robots are typically trained as solitary agents, leaving them unable to coordinate physically with human partners who naturally anticipate and adjust to one another. To bridge this gap, we present Social Humanoid, a hierarchical system that generates and executes socially responsive whole-body motion on a 29-DoF Unitree G1 conditioned on a human partner's motion. Its high-level policy performs flexible sequence modeling of human and humanoid motion through a shared tokenized representation, generating reactive humanoid motion and anticipating the partner's motion when they are occluded, while a low-level whole-body tracking controller executes the generated motion on the robot. To train the system, we introduce a two-phase adaptive retargeting procedure that retargets one interaction partner to the robot while morphing the other partner to preserve contact dynamics, reachability, and relative body scale. We apply this procedure across five motion-capture datasets to produce a new Human-Humanoid Interaction (HHI) benchmark of 260 hours of human-humanoid interactions. Our results demonstrate that Social Humanoid produces coordinated, human-aligned behavior across diverse interaction types in simulation and the real world. Project page: https://von31.github.io/social-humanoid/
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Same Behavior, Different Mechanism: What Finite Experiments Can Certify About Integrated Information
Linqian Wu, Diaoxuan He
Interpretability, AI auditing and assessments of machine consciousness increasingly rest on mechanism-level quantities: functionals of a system's causal transition law that describe how it computes, not what it outputs. Experiments see that law only through finite, partial and noisy interventions. We ask when such a quantity is identifiable from an experiment's access, continuous in the mechanism and certifiable from finite data, and answer exactly for a deliberately demanding case - the integrated information $\varphi$ of integrated information theory - in stochastic networks of four and five units with known ground truth. Behavior can be silent: a recurrent and a feed-forward network with identical input-output laws at their response delay carry 0.28 and 0 bits, yet internal recordings separate them within 4-53 trials. Partial access can be just as blind: in our examples, units left out of a one-step recording impose precision floors of 0.30-1.02 bits that no sample size lowers, and in all-but-self parity networks, recordings of any length see several hidden units only through the product of their fidelities - a symmetry that one intervention broke in exact checks. The measure has sharp edges: because $\varphi$ selects a partition, and the cause and effect it specifies, by one criterion and reports another, infinitesimal changes of mechanism that cross an edge change it by 25-100% at 99% of the edges we found in random networks, and about 1% of surrogate models that fit interventional data almost perfectly misreport it by more than 20%. One-sided claims survive: the same data certify a lower bound on both sides of an edge, and we prove $\varphi>1.004$ bits throughout a 64-dimensional region of mechanisms and certify it from about $10^7$ controlled transitions with false-certificate probability at most $α$. Measurability is thus a design question with computable answers.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
Where and Why is Grounded Reasoning Useful?
David Yan, Le Xue, Forrest Huang and 4 more
Grounded reasoning, where a model outputs text coordinates of relevant locations in chain-of-thought reasoning, is a common strategy for solving complex visual reasoning problems. However, the benefits and limitations of grounded reasoning are understudied. We study where and why grounded reasoning is most useful. To do so, we introduce a chain-of-thought analysis method to measure how much a model uses its outputted grounding in its thinking trace and perform a detailed ablation study of a grounded reasoning training recipe. We find that grounded reasoning improves counting but shows no significant gain over baselines without coordinate grounding across a wide range of spatial reasoning and perception benchmarks. Using several synthetic tasks, we show that grounded reasoning is most useful when a task requires undescribable references, which are visual concepts that are difficult to describe in language. However, we observe that many existing visual reasoning benchmarks are solvable with only describable text references. To close this gap, we introduce BrickVision, a new benchmark that requires undescribable visual references to solve.