#01Nov 10, 2026
stat.ML
A Theory of Cross-Validation Variance
Nathaniel S. O'Connell, Jaime L. Speiser
Cross-validation estimates predictive performance by repeatedly splitting the data into training and validation sets, fitting the model on the first and evaluating it on the second. Every observation influences the estimate in two roles, through its own evaluation when it is held out and through the models it helps fit when it trains. The random splits determine its weight in each role. From this representation, we prove an exact finite-sample identity for the variance of the cross-validated estimate. For a given splitting scheme with a common training set size, the variance is a function of these weights, with constants of the model, the metric, and the population. It covers metrics averaged over observations, such as mean squared error, and over case--control pairs, such as the AUC. The identity shows which schemes to use. The variance decomposes into sampling variance, which depends only on the training size, and variance due to the random fold splitting, which arises when the weights change from one draw of the splits to the next. K-fold cross-validation, whose weights are equal across observations by design, is therefore variance optimal at first order; Monte Carlo and bootstrap cross-validation are not. The first-order variance of K-fold does not depend on K, and under reasonable conditions on the model leave-one-out has the smallest variance of any K-fold scheme. For the AUC the same holds for leave-pair-out, which evaluates every case--control pair. Finally, we show the cross-validated estimate is asymptotically normal with the identity's full variance. Together, these results provide a general theoretical foundation for inference on cross-validated performance and establish principles for selecting variance-optimal cross-validation designs.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.AI
Re-Search: Dissecting LLM Ideation Through a Two-Player Questioning Game
Muhan Gao, Hangxiao Zhu, Xinqi Su and 3 more
Research ideation is iterative: researchers refine their ideas step by step based on feedback. Yet existing evaluations obscure this search process, making it difficult to understand how LLMs explore the space of research ideas and what limits their progress. We introduce Re-Search, which adapts the format of Twenty Questions to research ideation: given only the research problem of a published paper, a model must rediscover the paper's core idea by asking yes-or-no questions. Built from 200 ICML 2026 papers, Re-Search tracks how a model's idea evolves as it asks questions and receives binary oracle feedback, isolating ideation from execution. Across six recent LLMs, nearly all progress happens within the first 30 of 100 questions, which largely decide how the game ends; after that, most models plateau. Through controlled interventions on the candidate questions and the hypothesis space, we find that the bottleneck is generation, not judgment: models recognize a good idea or a good question when one is offered, but often cannot produce it on their own. We further analyze the ideation traces and find that models fail by either over-exploiting one direction or over-exploring too many. These findings point to concrete design principles for autoresearch systems: since models can judge candidates they cannot produce, enriching the search with externally sourced ideas and questions may be more effective than improving any single model's generation ability.
#03Nov 10, 2026
cs.CL
Mechanistic Interpretability Needs a Logic of Inference
Zhimin Hu, Chen Jiang, Hanbo Xie and 2 more
Neural networks are increasingly studied not merely as predictive systems, but as complex systems whose internal computations are themselves objects of scientific inquiry. Recent progress in mechanistic interpretability (MI) has made it possible to identify neurons, features, circuits, population structures, and dynamical patterns associated with model behavior. As these tools improve, attention is shifting from what can be observed inside a model to how those observations support mechanistic explanations. We examine the parallel efforts of neuroscience and MI to address this question and identify recurring inferential bottlenecks when inferring mechanisms from complex neural systems. We propose five principles and organize them into a recursive logic for a more rigorous procedure of mechanistic inference. These principles provide a framework that supports scientific discovery in two senses: it helps turn local interpretability findings into cumulative knowledge of mechanisms within models, and it makes those mechanisms sufficiently precise to generate testable hypotheses about domains beyond the models. Evidence beyond MI is ultimately required to establish what model mechanisms reveal about the world.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.CV
RS-JEPA: Remote Sensing Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture with Scan-Path Views for Cross-Sensor Image Retrieval
Tanishq Rachamalla, Srishti Kaushik, Muhammad Attique Khan and 2 more
Cross-sensor remote sensing image retrieval aims to find scenes with the same content across heterogeneous sensors, such as SAR and optical or panchromatic (PAN) and multispectral (MS) imagery, without manual labels. Existing self-supervised methods either reconstruct sensor-specific pixel detail, align each image only with its co-registered twin, or rely on large transformers with 118-173M parameters (and up to 398M). We introduce RS-JEPA, a compact joint-embedding predictive framework built on a Vision Mamba encoder shared by both sensors. Since a state-space encoder reads an image as an ordered sequence of patches, we propose scan-path views, which treat two reading orders of the same image as two views with identical pixels and predict the hidden patches in one order from the visible patches in the other.To keep this prediction challenging, we propose Adversarial View Coupling (AVC), which learns the hardest split of the visible patches, and a neighbourhood consensus loss that aligns the scene similarities of both sensors. Extensive experiments on SAR-optical (BEN-14K, CBRSIR-VS) and PAN-MS (DSRSID) benchmarks demonstrate that RS-JEPA achieves the highest F1@5 among twelve re-implemented methods (72.92, 80.35 and 94.43) with a retrieval network of only 3.88M parameters (14.57M in training, 8-16times fewer than prior JEPA retrievers). Like prior methods, RS-JEPA trains on co-registered pairs. Our results highlight reading order as a source of self-supervised views. code: https://github.com/Tanishq251/RSJEPA.
#05Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
When Does the Real Wiring Win? Testing connectome structure-function claims against unmeasured physiology
Yeyuan Liu
Connectome-constrained models are often used to argue that a measured wiring diagram outperforms shuffled or rewired wiring, and hence that structure shapes function. Such comparisons can confound wiring with how the models are tuned: a connectome fixes who connects to whom, not the excitability, gains or plasticity rates the model also needs, and modellers often tune these until the real-wiring model works. We separate three estimands: physiology tuned on the real wiring and transferred to nulls (P1), each wiring tuned on its own (P2), and P2 restricted to physiology consistent with independent data (P3). The biases involved are known in machine learning (under-tuned baselines, inherited weights, winner's curse); we measure what they do to biological conclusions, using synthetic ground truth, placebo nulls and three Drosophila circuit models. Some claims survive every protocol we test: segregated reward and punishment dopamine improves learning, and head-direction topography is required for a persistent bump. Others do not. In the mushroom body, the real Kenyon-cell output wiring beats a cross-subtype identity shuffle by 0.09 under P1 and P2 but loses to it by 0.09 under P3 (95% CIs exclude zero; held-out runs confirm). The verdict is set by the share of alpha'beta' cells among active Kenyon cells, which P1 selects low; at the share implied by imaging (about 44%) the real-wiring model fails to learn, exposing a model inadequacy rather than a deficit of the fly's wiring. In flyvis, P1 penalises a mirrored connectome, which has a constructed solution within 0.07 (median) of the real error, more than a spatially shuffled one in 50 of 50 members; the ranking survives ten-fold longer retraining but depends on the checkpoint at fifty-fold. A credible structural claim needs matched optimisation, data-constrained physiology and a model that still works there.