#01Nov 10, 2026
math.OC
Two Communities, One Problem: Branch-and-Bound vs. A* for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Izack Cohen, Dominik Kress, Lara Nehrke and 2 more
Branch-and-Bound (B&B) and $A^*$ are popular exact search methods originating from Operations Research and Artificial Intelligence, respectively. Although the two methods share fundamental search principles, their different ways of exploring the search space can lead to substantially different computational performance. We investigate these differences using the Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem (RCPSP) as an exemplary problem setting. We first establish the relationships between mixed-integer linear programming, state-action, and timed Petri-net representations. Since B&B and $A^*$ admit numerous algorithmic enhancements, we focus on relatively basic implementations. This allows us to examine the fundamental differences between the methods rather than compare the performance of state-of-the-art solvers. By using the same lower bound and best-first node selection, we isolate the effects of the search mechanisms, particularly the identification of equivalent states reached through different scheduling decision sequences. Experiments on 480 benchmark RCPSP instances show that graph-based $A^*$ substantially outperforms the B&B variants considered. With additional pruning rules, $A^*$ proves optimality for all 480 instances, compared with 445 for best-first B&B under the same time and memory limits. Depth-first B&B uses less memory and can find feasible solutions even when the search does not finish within the time limit. Stronger linear programming relaxations reduce the search space but introduce considerable computational overhead. Our findings highlight the importance of duplicate-state detection and clarify the computational trade-offs between the search approaches. These insights can help researchers select an appropriate method and identify opportunities to incorporate effective mechanisms from one approach into the other.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.CV
Medical Image Segmentation: Foundation Model Adaptation versus Task-Specific Training
Emre Kutlusan, Yongmin Li
Foundation models pretrained on large natural-image collections are increasingly adapted for medical image segmentation, in the expectation that they will replace models trained for each task. Most comparisons, however, use data from the training distribution and a single task-specific baseline whose configuration is rarely justified, and therefore provide limited evidence of performance at new clinical sites. It also remains unclear how much of a foundation model must be adapted, and what determines this. We adapted a foundation model, DINOv2, with strategies ranging from tuning only its bias terms to full fine-tuning, and compared it with U-Nets and ResU-Nets trained from scratch. Experiments covered colonoscopy, breast ultrasound and dermoscopy, with testing on held-out data from the training source and on independent datasets from other institutions. The adapted foundation model generalised better on every external dataset. Within the training distribution, the task-specific models remained competitive when training data were abundant, and delineated boundaries more precisely, while the foundation model more often missed small lesions. Only a small fraction of the foundation model required adaptation, and the capacity needed was determined by the imaging domain rather than by the adaptation method. A widely used polyp test set was also found to duplicate images from another benchmark. Foundation-model adaptation is therefore warranted where models must work across sites, with capacity selected on the target domain.
#03Nov 10, 2026
math.AP
Bayesian inverse problems and epidemic-threshold uncertainty for a heterogeneous SIS reaction-diffusion model
Duc-Lam Duong
We study Bayesian inference of persistence from early observations of a heterogeneous susceptible--infected--susceptible (SIS) reaction--diffusion model with standard incidence. We show that the leading prevalence dynamics depend on the unknown coefficients only through the difference between the transmission and recovery rates and the infected diffusivity. The same pair determines the principal eigenvalue whose sign governs persistence, so early prevalence can inform the threshold even when the individual rates remain uncertain. We prove global weak well-posedness and quantitative parameter stability for the SIS system and use the resulting observation-map estimates to establish Bayesian well-posedness. For an initial infection of size $\varepsilon$, we derive a uniform second-order expansion that describes how the separate rates enter prevalence. Incidence depends explicitly on transmission at leading order. When the noise standard deviation is proportional to $\varepsilon$, we prove $O(\varepsilon)$ convergence in Hellinger distance of the nonlinear posteriors to their low-prevalence limits for both prevalence alone and joint prevalence and incidence data. We bound the principal eigenvalue using the growth rate of the infected $L^2$ norm between two times. This rate gives a lower bound for the full nonlinear system, and the upper bound separates spatial transients from nonlinear saturation. Uniform spectral estimates and bounds on infection size and measurement error give sufficient conditions for persistence and extinction. We also bound the error in posterior persistence probabilities under forward and eigenvalue approximation, accounting for posterior mass near the threshold. Numerical examples illustrate threshold inference and the predicted \(O(\varepsilon)\) convergence of the nonlinear posteriors to their low-prevalence limits in Hellinger distance.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
Quantifying the Sampling Frequency Invariance of Time-Series Foundation Models for Sensor Data Applications
Sourish Gunesh Dhekane, Abinaya Kumar, Torsten Woertwein and 3 more
Time-Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) are increasingly used in sensor applications, where sampling frequency (SF) varies across sensors, devices, and operating modes (e.g., power saving). Ideally, TSFMs must remain effective during such SF changes, provided the SF retains task-critical bandwidth. In this paper, we stress-test 4 prominent TSFMs: MOMENT, Chronos-2, Moirai-MoE, and TimesFM, to quantify their SF-invariance and investigate whether their behavior tracks the resulting loss of information bandwidth rather than the SF value itself. Our stress-test probes 3 dimensions: (i) the shift in embeddings, (ii) the degradation in forecasting performance, and (iii) the degradation in downstream performance, quantified by three novel metrics: FSI, FDI, and CDI, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first study to place SF-invariance at the core of TSFM evaluations. Our results characterize: (i) how SF-invariance depends on the margin between signal's native-SF and the bandwidth its task requires, (ii) how much of that invariance the choice of TSFM explains, and (iii) how much of TSFM's performance degradation under a lower SF reflects information loss rather than a limitation of their abilities. These findings reframe SF-invariance as a measurable, signal-aware property of the (signal X TSFM) pair, and guide practitioners on when TSFMs display SF-invariance.
#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.