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 5, 2026

cs.CL

Understanding AI from the Inside: The State of Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety

Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Hunar Batra and 24 more

Neural networks are likely to be among the most consequential artefacts in human history. As these systems become more capable and autonomous, their potential to cause societal harm also grows, making AI safety one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet we continue to build increasingly powerful systems without fully understanding how they work, how they will behave in unfamiliar situations, or how to reliably control them. Mechanistic interpretability offers a path towards understanding these systems by studying their internal representations and computations, with the aim of evaluating, predicting, and controlling behaviour. We survey mechanistic interpretability for AI safety in order to answer the question: Does understanding how models work actually make them safer? We place mechanistic interpretability in the broader context of interpretability research and compare its mechanistic evidence with behavioural evaluation. We introduce the foundations of mechanistic interpretability, including features, polysemanticity, transformer computation, and circuits, and survey methods for feature extraction and analysis, circuit discovery and causal verification, explaining intermediate representations in natural language, learning dynamics, and training-data attribution. Beyond surveying existing methods, we propose a unified framework for evaluating mechanistic interpretability claims and characterise six research orientations by their goals, assumptions, and trade-offs. Finally, we examine how mechanistic understanding can support AI safety, including knowledge editing, steering, and monitoring, and assess its limitations, failure modes, open problems, and relationship to behavioural safety measures. We also release a repository of code notebooks with worked examples that reproduce key findings from surveyed methods, allowing readers to build intuition through hands-on experimentation.

#02Nov 5, 2026

cs.LG

Hybrid Machine Learning for Imbalanced Landing-Phase Safety Event Prediction from Flight Data

Taha Asghar, Bilal Mufti, Syed Qasim Zaheer and 1 more

Landing-phase safety-event prediction requires the detection of rare abnormal approaches within strongly imbalanced multivariate flight data. Capturing coupled temporal behavior while distinguishing event-specific signatures across airport operating contexts remains a central modeling challenge. This study proposes an interpretable hybrid feature-fusion framework for multiclass landing-phase safety-event prediction. A long short-term memory (LSTM) autoencoder trained on nominal flight windows characterizes deviations from routine approach behavior. Its continuous reconstruction-error descriptor is fused with parameter-specific statistical flight-history features and supplied to a class-weighted XGBoost classifier to distinguish Normal, Speed High, Path High, and Flaps Late windows. The framework is evaluated using 53,750 NASA DASHlink approach windows from three arrival airports. Pooled and airport-specific learning strategies are compared alongside component-level benchmarks, repeated pipeline retraining, and feature-attribution analysis. The results demonstrate strong class-balanced detection, with mean macro recall above 0.90 across all airports under repeated partitioning and retraining. Component comparisons establish the importance of class weighting and show that continuous feature fusion outperforms reconstruction-error-only and hard-gate alternatives. Airport-level comparisons reveal benefits from local specialization at the two airports with larger datasets and from pooled training at the airport with the smallest dataset. Feature attributions associate predictions with operationally relevant vertical-path, configuration, speed, and approach-context variables. The framework provides an interpretable approach to rare-event detection and practical guidance for adapting flight-data monitoring models to airport-level data availability.

#03Nov 5, 2026

cs.CL

Measured Coupling for Parallel Decoding in Diffusion Language Models

Tal Oved, Lior Wolf

Diffusion language models can write many tokens per step, but must choose which tokens are safe to commit together. Mean-field decoding penalizes pairs of positions whose predictions look alike. We replace this proxy with the coupling itself: how much committing one token changes the model's confidence at another. Cheap probes inside the main forward pass measure it, with no training or extra model, and it plugs into the same mean-field rule. On three models and four benchmarks, our method needs far fewer steps than mean-field decoding and is faster in most settings, also with a key-value cache, at an average accuracy cost of 1.1 points. Shuffling the couplings or replacing them with a uniform bonus loses this gain.

#04Nov 5, 2026

cs.LG

Adversarial Training with Large Step Sizes: Implicit Bias, Optimization, and Sharpness

Yi Feng, Andrea Paudice

Adversarial Training (AT) is an important method for improving model robustness. We study the dynamics of deterministic Gradient Descent (GD) in AT. Most existing works in this direction focus on the small or vanishing step sizes regime, where GD resembles a continuous-time flow. However, such step sizes can make training inefficient and are rarely used in practice. In this paper, we study the AT dynamics of GD with large constant step sizes. We first study GD in adversarial linear logistic regression, focusing on two aspects: where the model parameters converge (implicit bias) and how quickly the losses decrease (optimization). We then turn to neural networks training and study how the sharpness of losses evolve during AT. Our results advance the understanding of the behaviors of GD with large step sizes in AT and highlight three key differences from its behavior in Standard Training (ST): (i) the implicit bias gap between AT and ST, previously established only for small step sizes, persists for arbitrarily large constant step sizes, (ii) different from ST, there is no uniform rate of convergence for the optimization error in AT, and (iii) sharpness can exhibit two-stage dynamics that differ from the Edge-of-Stability behavior observed in ST.

#05Nov 5, 2026

cs.CL

Label-Wording Augmentation in a Typed-Decision Encoder: Gains on Unfamiliar Words, Not on Abbreviations or Codes

Vladimir Beskorovainyi

Typed-decision models score options that the caller supplies at request time, so their accuracy depends on label wording that the model's developer does not control. We compare two releases of a 307M-parameter multilingual cross-encoder, Ru-Jev, trained on thirteen Russian-language tasks; the later release adds an augmentation that presents labels in several surface forms. Holding questions fixed and varying only how eighteen routing labels are worded, we evaluate ten label vocabularies, produced by three separate processes and checked for overlap with the training data, with five candidates per question and, for eight of them, also with eighteen. On held-out vocabularies made of ordinary or borrowed words (English-derived jargon, office slang, department names), the augmented release is more accurate in every setting, by up to 0.24. Eleven of these fourteen gains survive a Holm correction (slang with eighteen candidates and descriptive sentences with five do not), and for jargon on all labels the label-level interval excludes zero in both settings. On abbreviations and opaque codes it gives no usable gain: on abbreviations it is not better, and worse on the clean slice, and on opaque codes both releases stay at or below chance once labels related to training options are removed. In most cells where accuracy rises, the risk-coverage area falls, but with eighteen candidates confident errors rise on jargon and slang. On two datasets neither release saw, accuracy moves by -8.4 and +5.6 points. We also report four evaluation hazards from comparing the two releases.