#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 6, 2026
cs.LG
The Cost of Coverage: Conformalising Native Forecast Uncertainty for GB Wind Power
Carl Somers
Uncertainty bands on wind forecasts help inform reserve sizing and commitments, but often fail to deliver their stated coverage. We apply conformal prediction to native bands to see what it adds and what it costs, comparing six forecasters, from ARIMA to a tabular foundation model, at two wind farms in Great Britain (GB) under operational conditions. We show that calibration repairs empirical marginal coverage with little or no Winkler Score penalty, but this apparent success conceals under-coverage in high winds. Calibrating by forecast wind regime turns marginal coverage into regime-level coverage, cutting day-ahead out-of-band volume in high winds by over 40% relative to pooled calibration while narrowing bands overall.
#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.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.