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

quant-ph

Discovering formally verified quantum programs with AI

Sergey Shirobokov, Ben Jaderberg, Katerina Hristova and 22 more

The timeline by which quantum computers can solve breakthrough problems in science depends on improved quantum algorithms as much as on better hardware. Such algorithmic advances are typically achieved through many years of expert human collaboration. In mathematics and computer science, large language models have accelerated progress through automated discovery loops. However, quantum algorithms can only be evaluated by classical computers on restricted or small instances. Here we demonstrate automated discovery of quantum programs beyond these regimes including order-of-magnitude improvements on scientific applications. To achieve this, we build a quantum program library in the Lean theorem prover in which large language model agents synthesize novel programs against formal problem specifications and verify their correctness and cost. Agent teams collaborate, sharing results and knowledge through wikis and discussing ideas at organized conferences. Our results improve on prior baselines for parallel search (up to 1.4x), quantum arithmetic (290x), and simulations relevant to fusion, photochemistry and drug-metabolism by 11x, 8x and 2.5x respectively. Combining human and artificial intelligence at scale, under the rigor of mathematical proof, lets researchers design algorithms that today's classical and quantum computers cannot test, shortening the path to practical quantum computation.

#02Nov 6, 2026

cs.IT

How far does a hash-only sender go? A pre-registered map of sender memory versus bits for short text messages

Marcelo Samoilenko

Can a sender that only computes hashes, with a language model only at the receiver, transmit short human text more cheaply than a classical sender trained on the same domain? We answer with one pre-registered run on 1,000 English user utterances from Taskmaster-1. The primary endpoint is the cost per message to deliver 100% of the messages (hash bits, plus a 2-byte negative acknowledgement and the raw text when the first attempt fails), paired against an in-domain PPM order-1 sender. The hash-only sender delivered 857 of 1,000 messages on the first attempt and cost 192.8 bits per message, 18.4 bits more than PPM order 1 (95% bootstrap interval 10.9 to 26.3); by the pre-registered rule it spends more and is not equivalent within one byte. As secondary results we map measured sender memory against bits. The hash-only sender (8,190 B on a host build, keyed BLAKE2b tag included, as in every method) was the cheapest point in bits from 8,190 B up to, but excluding, PPM order 1 at 24,844 B, 45 to 46 bits below smaz2 and Unishox2; from PPM order 1 upwards, in-domain senders spend fewer bits, except order 2 pruned to 16 KiB. In airtime it loses to PPM order 1 on all five links priced, to Unishox2 on four, and to raw text with a tag on two, because each failure costs an acknowledgement frame and a fallback frame. A wider receiver search recovers half of the failures and makes the cost 7.7 bits lower than PPM order 1, at about three minutes of receiver time per failure, and still loses in airtime on four of five links. We report the measurement as a delimitation, with every deviation of the run.

#03Nov 6, 2026

cs.CL

Compaction, decay and reinforcement in a two-tier conversational memory: a paired evaluation against retrieval-augmented generation

Osamudiamen Edogun, Joshua Obigwe, Irfan Mehmood

A conversational agent that remembers has to decide what to keep. Retrieval-augmented generation keeps the transcript and searches it; the alternative is to compact each turn into atomic facts and search those. We compare the two on LoCoMo, with both arms answering all 1,985 questions in one window, against the same stores, with the same generator and judge, and both predictions on one row, which licenses McNemar's exact test on the 512 questions where they disagree. On the four categories comparable work reports, compaction scores 71.4 per cent against 64.6, a lead of 6.8 points (p = 5.5e-08) at 34 per cent fewer prompt tokens. On all five, including the adversarial set comparable work drops, the lead falls to 2.0 and stops being significant, because the baseline leads adversarial by 14.6. That loss has a structure. Our lead falls as the reference answer demands more source wording, 9.6 points ahead at one or two reference words and 3.1 behind past eight, with token overlap moving the same way, so the judge is not the cause. Compaction keeps what a fact asserts and discards how it was said, so it wins where the answer is a value and loses where it is a phrasing. We also report four negative results with their power calculations.

#04Nov 6, 2026

cs.RO

On Agentic Manipulation Policies

Chen Chen, Omid Bagherieh, Naveen Nikamanth Appiah Balaji and 10 more

Recent work on robot manipulation has focused on specialist policies trained on demonstrations. We show that generalist AI models can control manipulators more reliably than specialist policies such as vision-language-action models (VLAs) and world-action models (WAMs). We systematically analyze agentic manipulation policies (AMPs), in which a generalist AI model commands the manipulator directly, adapting its actions as the task unfolds. We present AMP1, a reference harness that runs unchanged across single-arm, bimanual, and mobile manipulation. AMP1 achieves state-of-the-art results on the RoboLab-120 and CaP-Gym benchmarks, with no demonstrations or task-specific training. On RoboLab-120, AMP1 reaches an 85.6\% success rate zero-shot, compared to 49.2\% and 42.9\% for leading VLA and WAM policies. The agent succeeds zero-shot in 104 of 108 real-world trials spanning twelve tasks and three robot instances, reducing failure rates by 20x and 15x relative to strong VLA and WAM baselines. The basic harness supplies no grasping, pushing, or placing skills; the agent develops its own strategies, such as searching for hidden objects, using objects as tools, and calibrating its cameras. With the addition of a persistent memory store, the agent can also learn from experience: an augmented harness with a memory representation that is carried across episodes lowers the failure rate on RoboDojo bimanual manipulation tasks by 4.6x relative to zero-shot deployment. Our analysis suggests that AMPs are substantially more general and robust than specialist manipulation policies, providing a promising foundation for robot manipulation.

#05Nov 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.