#01Nov 6, 2026
cs.RO
Grasp-TAGS: Task-Aware Grasp Selection via Critic Distillation for Prehensile Loco-Manipulation
Xun Tu, Minghao Zou, Karthik Desingh
Loco-manipulation, which requires mobile manipulators to coordinate locomotion and manipulation over long horizons, is a key capability for large-object rearrangement in applications such as service robotics and warehouse automation. Despite recent progress, reliably executing these tasks remains challenging because performance depends on complex robot-object and object-environment interaction dynamics. Existing approaches address this challenge either through model-based methods, which often require accurate dynamics models, or through learning-based methods, which reduce this requirement but typically assume a fixed or predefined initial grasp. However, different geometrically stable grasps can lead to substantially different downstream manipulation performance. Therefore, we propose Grasp-TAGS, a task-aware grasp selection framework for goal-conditioned large-object rearrangement. We train a unified PPO-based reinforcement learning policy across multiple initial grasp configurations and distill the learned critic into a lightweight grasp utility network that ranks candidate grasps using only the candidate grasp configuration and goal information. At inference time, we select the grasp with the highest predicted downstream utility for the downstream policy to complete the task, before even making a contact. Experiments demonstrate that Grasp-TAGS improves rearrangement success over both fixed single-grasp policies and random grasp selection, achieving an average success rate of 89.84% compared with 79.87% for the best-performing single-grasp policies, an improvement of 9.97 percentage points. Grasp-TAGS also reduces final orientation errors across all evaluated objects. For more qualitative results, refer to the supplementary webpage: https://rpm-lab-umn.github.io/Grasp-TAGS-web-page/
#02Nov 6, 2026
cs.AI
Flow-Guided Target-Space Alignment via Path Consistency
Ruizhi Yuan, Zeqiu Yu, Wei Gao and 3 more
Many multimodal alignment problems require mapping a source modality into a fixed space defined by a target modality, where the target space is not merely an intermediate embedding but is used directly for downstream analysis. In this setting, successful alignment should preserve both the global structure of the target distribution and the instance-level correspondence observed in paired source--target training data. Existing objectives typically address only part of this goal: contrastive losses encourage relative similarity, distribution-matching losses improve marginal agreement, and pointwise regression fits each source sample to its paired target without explicitly modeling target-space path geometry. We propose FlowAlign, a flow-guided target-space alignment method that repurposes conditional flow matching as a training-time alignment signal rather than an inference-time transport model. FlowAlign uses the learned flow field to guide the alignment of source-side representations with the fixed target space, encouraging them to preserve paired correspondence while remaining compatible with the global target-space structure. We further provide theoretical analysis showing how FlowAlign helps improve paired correspondence by controlling endpoint accuracy and capturing local target-space geometry. Experiments on synthetic data, paired single-cell multiome benchmarks, and image--text alignment demonstrate that FlowAlign improves instance level correspondence while preserving target-space structure across different modality settings.
#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.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.
#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%.