#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
Pyrite: Building and Benchmarking Protein-Ligand Pose Ranking Agents
Megha Srivastava, Michael H. Lim, Allison M. Keys and 2 more
Predicting how a ligand binds to its target is central to small-molecule drug discovery. Modern cofolding models can generate diverse candidate poses, but reliably ranking these candidates remains challenging. We introduce Pyrite, a pairwise pose-ranking benchmark comprising 1,500 pose pairs across diverse protein-ligand complexes. Expert chemists equipped with 3D visualization tools and physics-based scores perform near chance, highlighting the difficulty of interpreting available chemical signals. To investigate automated ranking, we introduce PyriteRep, a structured representation of molecular geometry, protein-ligand interactions, and physicochemical scores, and develop two LLM-based agents: PyriteReasoner, which directly compares poses through text-based reasoning, and PyriteFeaturizer, which generates executable code to construct features for logistic regression, optionally incorporating features derived from LLM subcalls. These agents achieve up to 67% and 74% accuracy, respectively, exceeding observed expert performance. LLM-guided feature discovery generally outperforms direct reasoning, while Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) improves open-weight models, enabling them to match or surpass closed-source frontier models in our evaluations. These results establish Pyrite as a challenging test of pose-ranking ability and highlight LLM-guided feature discovery as a promising approach to interpret and combine the outputs of computational chemistry tools.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.SD
Exploring Post-Hoc Disentanglement of Audio Foundation Models for Music Similarity
Lucas de Souza Brandão, Gabriel da Costa Merlin, Diego Furtado Silva
Audio foundation models like CLAP, MuQ, and MERT excel at capturing general musical similarity. On the other hand, their entangled latent spaces limit interpretability and fine-grained attribute control. Conditional Similarity Networks (CSN) address this by pairing a backbone representation model with learned masks that gate the embedding space into attribute-specific subspaces. However, existing methods train the backbone from scratch, rather than leveraging pretrained foundation models. We instead present a systematic study of post-hoc disentanglement, adapting CSN to gate frozen pretrained embeddings. We evaluate adding trainable parameters to adapt the embedding under different masking and pooling regimes across two datasets. Our findings show that minimal adaptation capacity is sufficient for post-hoc gating to improve both attribute-specific disentanglement and overall retrieval performance, while pooling, masking, and depth choices yield limited additional gains.
#05Nov 10, 2026
cs.AI
Bits or permutations? Spending a fixed inference budget on weight precision or on option-order averaging in small local language models
Mohammed Nayeem Khan, Logesh L, Aliyas Ahmad Misri
Local language models can save memory by storing weights in fewer bits, and they can reduce sensitivity to the order of answer options by averaging a few reorderings. We ask whether the first makes the second worse, and which is the cheaper way to spend a fixed budget. On Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-1.7B with simulated round-to-nearest weight quantization (8, 6, 4 and 3 bits, fp16 reference), read from the logits of the letters A to D on ARC-Easy, ARC-Challenge, MMLU and HellaSwag (300 items each), 6 bits lose no accuracy against fp16 (they score +1.8 (+1.0 to +2.5) and +0.9 (+0.3 to +1.5) points higher, which we do not explain), and 8 bits change it by -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3) and -0.4 (-0.7 to -0.2) points. At 4 bits the answer-slot skew rises from 0.15 to 0.53 (0.6B) and from 0.07 to 0.12 (1.7B); Gaussian noise at the same weight SNR gives 0.15 and 0.37 (two draws) and 0.19 (one draw), so the control is inconclusive on whether rounding adds slot skew beyond equal-power noise. Flip rates rise but stay below an accuracy-matched baseline of independent uniform errors. Averaging four cyclic orders recovers +12.6 points at 4 bits for 0.6B (+5.3 at fp16). We price bits and passes in one machine-independent unit, weight bytes read times passes. In cost-matched pairs, extra orders beat extra bits only when the weights have 6 or more bits, and the decision table reduces to: use 6-bit weights and spend the rest of the budget on up to four orders, one pass each. Everything is simulated on two small models with the simplest quantizer; a title-level search found no earlier study of quantization together with option order.