#01Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
A Theory of Policy Optimization in Post-Training: Coverage Collapse and Reference Resets
Audrey Huang, Nan Jiang, Sham M. Kakade and 3 more
Policy optimization is central to language model post-training, yet principled guidance remains limited. We revisit its theoretical foundations to identify algorithms that learn near-optimal policies using total samples and gradient steps governed by the base model's response coverage, a measure of how readily it generates optimal responses. We call such algorithms coverage-preserving. This guarantee captures the goal of amplifying capabilities accessible through sampling from the base model. (1) Coverage collapse. REINFORCE, the basis for PPO and GRPO, can drive the probability of optimal responses to near zero, even as reward improves. This coverage collapse stalls optimization, and convergence can require exponentially many steps despite good initial coverage. The failure arises even with exact gradients and persists under KL regularization to the base model. (2) Reference resets. We show that repeatedly resetting the KL reference to the most recent policy mitigates coverage collapse. We formalize this intervention in Approximate Policy Mirror Descent (APMD), a meta-algorithm that approximately solves a sequence of KL-regularized RL subproblems. APMD enables stronger regularization, making each subproblem easier to solve, while reference resets allow convergence to global optimality. (3) Coverage-preserving algorithms. For softmax linear policies over pretrained features, we use APMD to establish the first global convergence guarantees showing that widely used families of post-training algorithms are coverage-preserving. These include stylized PPO and GRPO variants with explicit KL regularization and reference resets, and squared-loss algorithms that implement them implicitly, including those used to train the Kimi models. These results clarify how regularization, clipping, and objective choice affect the sampling and optimization costs of post-training.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 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.
#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.