ML Reads

Personal arXiv list

ML papers to read today.

Pick a topic and keep a small daily list of papers worth opening.

Refresh queueDaily mix

Today's queue

5 papers

#01Nov 6, 2026

cs.CV

FlowMoP: Stochastic Multi-Person Motion Prediction

Aadya Agrawal, Ho Kei Cheng, Alexander Schwing

Predicting the future motion of multiple people is inherently stochastic: the same observed history admits many plausible continuations depending on intent, coordination, and social context. Yet the dominant paradigm in multi-person 3D motion prediction remains deterministic, with existing methods producing a fixed number of outputs per agent. In contrast, we present a conditional flow matching framework that jointly generates diverse future motions for multiple agents, modeling both global trajectories and root-relative poses. A B-spline reparameterization compresses the generative state space while enforcing temporal smoothness, and a dual-stream transformer conditions each agent's predictions on observed neighbor motion for interaction-aware forecasting. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on CMU-Mocap (UMPM) and 3DPW, outperforming deterministic baselines on joint position error, pose error, and final displacement error despite producing a full predictive distribution. We additionally establish the first motion prediction baseline on WorldPose, a large-scale professional soccer dataset, where social conditioning demonstrably concentrates predictive uncertainty along interaction-constrained directions.

#02Nov 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.

#03Nov 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.

#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.SE

When Instruction Files Go Stale: Documentation Debt and Hidden Cost in Coding Agents

Tural Mehtiyev, Biruk Tadesse, Lawrence Arkoh and 1 more

LLM-based coding agents such as Claude Code are guided by repository instruction files (also called context files or agent configuration files) like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, which are read in every agent session. As any documentation artifact, these files can fall behind the code and become stale (e.g., a test folder moves, but the file still points to the old one). In technical debt terms, such a stale instruction is documentation debt, and its interest is the cost it adds to every later agent session. Evaluations that check only task success can miss this cost, and the stale file can persist. In this study, we ask what leads agents to act on a stale instruction, how it affects their behavior and at what cost, and how they recover. We study three real-world stale instructions from active open-source repositories in depth, each a different kind of guidance: a test command, a code location, and a procedure for adding a component. Agents fix 22 maintenance tasks under three versions of each instruction (left stale, corrected to the current path, and removed), with the code and the task held fixed, and we analyze 732 trajectories of two models at the level of individual tool calls. We find that agents follow stale guidance when it is relevant to their tasks, sometimes even when correct information is available elsewhere. On the stale test command, Claude Sonnet 5.5 needed about two extra tool calls per run, a third more than with the corrected command; in the other cases, we could not detect a difference. Although agents generally recovered from the immediate failures, none repaired the underlying instruction file. Correcting the instructions eliminated operations on obsolete paths, while removing them prevented most. Our findings show that task success alone can hide the costs of documentation debt, highlighting the need to evaluate agent behavior beyond final outcomes.