#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
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.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 10, 2026
stat.ME
One Curve, Different Weights: AUC, the Brier Score, Decision-Weighted AUC, and the Policy Youden Index
Yegor Baranovski
AUC and the Brier score are standard summaries of a binary risk score, yet they can rank models differently. We introduce a weighted AUC, AUC$_π$, which weights each pair of observations by how differently a decision maker with probability of acting $π$ treats them. We show that all three are built on weighted averages of one curve, the Youden index $J(t) = \mathrm{TPR}(t) - \mathrm{FPR}(t)$ across cutoffs $t$, and that the averages differ in the weights they put on the cutoffs. Each weights a cutoff by how much something rises across it: for AUC, the distribution of all scores; for the Brier score, the true probability $\mathbb{E}[Y \mid S]$; for AUC$_π$, the decision maker's probability of acting. Up to normalization, AUC$_π$ is the Brier skill score of the ideal forecast with its weight moved to the cutoffs the decision maker cares about. We also show that weighting pairs by $|π(s) - π(s')|$ is, up to scale, the only pair weight fixed in advance that makes a pair-weighted AUC an average of the Youden curve for every score distribution. As a ranking measure, AUC weights every model the same way. Hand (2009) shows that it can also be read as an average over cost thresholds, and in that reading each model weights the thresholds differently. The numerator of AUC$_π$, which we call the policy Youden index, is the expected share of class 1 a fixed policy acts on minus the expected share of class 0. It judges every model by the same policy and so avoids this; the full ratio AUC$_π$ does not.
#05Nov 10, 2026
cs.AI
Comparative Analysis of Agent Evaluation Frameworks: Stability, Detection, and Discovery in Enterprise Analytics Agents
Howard Zhang, Chuck Arvin, Logan Brown and 3 more
Deploying LLM-based analytics agents in enterprise settings requires evaluation frameworks that can reliably detect failures across complex, multi-tool workflows. We present a three-phase comparative study of three evaluation frameworks, each representing a distinct evaluation paradigm (trace-based LLM judging, text-only LLM judging with red-teaming, and deterministic heuristics), applied to two analytics agents in a controlled research setting using frozen execution traces. Phase 1 quantifies evaluation harness stability through repeated measurements, finding that 97% of configurations meet the stability threshold and that stability patterns are agent-independent. Phase 2 measures known risk detection on 72 ground-truth test cases, where the trace-based framework achieves the best precision-recall balance (F1=0.90) while text-only evaluation matches on recall but generates 5x more false alarms. Phase 3 evaluates unknown risk discovery, uncovering 24 novel failures with zero overlap between functional testing and security red-teaming. Our results demonstrate that (1) the information available to the evaluation harness determines evaluation quality, (2) functional and security evaluation are complementary, and (3) LLM-based evaluation harnesses surface subtle errors that human reviewers miss. We recommend a two-framework strategy: trace-based evaluation for functional assessment and adversarial red-teaming for security validation.