#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.AI
Contrastive Discovery: Open-Ended Scientific Discovery over Competing Explanations
Ziang Liu, James J. Kim, Yijia Dai and 1 more
LLM agents are increasingly used for open-ended, data-driven scientific discovery, yet most of them evaluate hypotheses pointwise, testing an empirical claim $h$ only against its complement $\neg h$. When evidence rejects $h$, the agent learns that one explanation is unlikely but not which alternative the evidence supports. To recover that alternative, we introduce Contrastive Discovery, which replaces the single hypothesis with a contrast set, a scientific question paired with mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive competing explanations. Each experiment is scored by how its evidence redistributes belief across the set, and the question is resolved when belief concentrates on one explanation. Because contrast sets change only the unit an agent proposes and scores, an existing agent can use them to re-evaluate evidence it has already collected or to guide its search. Across six domains, $89\%$ of the pointwise candidates with the largest belief shifts are rejections. On the same evidence, contrast sets resolve $73\%$ of these candidates to a specific alternative. When contrast sets guide search, the agent resolves $67\%$ more questions than pointwise surprisal under the same experiment budget. In a blinded study, $38$ human experts chose the same explanation on $78\%$ of resolved questions and on $82\%$ of questions where the pointwise agent rejected its hypothesis and stopped. Together, these results support explicit competing explanations as a way for discovery agents to resolve more scientific questions from the same evidence and validation budget.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
TimeSeek: Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Pretraining for Generalized Time Series Analytics
Peng Chen, Yihang Wang, Zhongwen Rao and 6 more
Time series analytics has been widely applied across various domains. While existing time series foundation models (TSFMs) have demonstrated promising results, they still face two major challenges: 1) Most TSFMs mainly rely on stacking Transformer layers to increase parameter size, lacking the ability to adaptively model complex time series patterns from multi-domain data. 2) Current TSFMs are primarily pre-trained for specific tasks, e.g., forecasting or anomaly detection, and a few models support multiple tasks, but they fail to fully leverage task specificity and commonality, resulting in suboptimal performance. To address these challenges, we propose TimeSeek, a novel generalized time series analytics model that adaptively models time series patterns from multi-domain data and unifies multiple tasks in pre-training. Conceptually, TimeSeek is guided by selective information sharing under domain and task heterogeneity. From the perspective of multi-domain data, we propose a Multi-Domain Feature Extractor that adaptively captures temporal dependencies and channel correlations based on domain-specific characteristics, including progressive multi-scale modeling and adaptive slot channel modeling. From the perspective of the diversity of tasks, we propose multi-task collaborative training, which leverages task specificity and task commonality through task customization and cross-task training, effectively unifying multiple tasks in pre-training and better adapting to diverse downstream scenarios. After pre-training on large-scale time series data, TimeSeek achieves state-of-the-art performance in forecasting, anomaly detection, and classification tasks across both few-shot learning and zero-shot situations, together with favorable inference efficiency.
#05Nov 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.