#01Nov 10, 2026
cs.CL
Mechanistic Interpretability Needs a Logic of Inference
Zhimin Hu, Chen Jiang, Hanbo Xie and 2 more
Neural networks are increasingly studied not merely as predictive systems, but as complex systems whose internal computations are themselves objects of scientific inquiry. Recent progress in mechanistic interpretability (MI) has made it possible to identify neurons, features, circuits, population structures, and dynamical patterns associated with model behavior. As these tools improve, attention is shifting from what can be observed inside a model to how those observations support mechanistic explanations. We examine the parallel efforts of neuroscience and MI to address this question and identify recurring inferential bottlenecks when inferring mechanisms from complex neural systems. We propose five principles and organize them into a recursive logic for a more rigorous procedure of mechanistic inference. These principles provide a framework that supports scientific discovery in two senses: it helps turn local interpretability findings into cumulative knowledge of mechanisms within models, and it makes those mechanisms sufficiently precise to generate testable hypotheses about domains beyond the models. Evidence beyond MI is ultimately required to establish what model mechanisms reveal about the world.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.AI
ReTrace: Distilling Tool-Using Agents into Planner-Free Workflows
Kaiyuan Hou, Yang Ping Kuo, Indranil Bhattacharya and 6 more
Business process automation runs the same Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) again and again on new inputs. Large Language Model (LLM) agents can follow an SOP written in natural language, but they call an LLM to choose every step of every run, which adds latency and cost at scale. We present ReTrace, which turns an SOP and a few logged agent runs into a reusable workflow in which code, not an LLM, selects the next step. The agent's reasoning, the explanation it writes with each tool call, often states why it took an action; the tool calls alone do not. ReTrace extracts the condition behind each step, merges these conditions across runs into a compact rule document, and generates an executable workflow from it. Only this last stage depends on the platform, so rule documents can be compiled for different orchestration platforms. On $79$ procedures from our production platform, ReTrace workflows reach $93.8\%$ completion, against $96.8\%$ for the agent, at $24\%$ lower cost per task. On $τ^2$-Bench, they reach $75.8\%$ task success (agent: $80.6\%$) and run in $1.3$s instead of $170$s; three rounds of repair on training failures lift $k{=}2$ workflows from $66.7\%$ to $81.2\%$. On eight SOP-Bench procedures, ReTrace without repair trails few-shot generation ($80.6\%$ vs. $83.6\%$), but repair from labeled training failures lifts it to $87.8\%$ at $0.40$s per task, compared to $85.5\%$ in $46.6$s for the agent.
#03Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
TorchCurves: Differentiable Parametric Curves
Alex Shtoff
We present TorchCurves, a PyTorch library that treats vector-valued parametric curves as learnable primitives. Its central operation maps batches of scalar inputs to points on curves represented in B-spline or Legendre polynomial bases, with differentiation through both inputs and coefficients. Curve coefficients can be optimized jointly with the surrounding model or produced by another network. The library provides trainable modules, reusable basis modules, and a functional interface, supporting applications ranging from continuous feature embeddings to Kolmogorov-Arnold networks and functional regression. Its implementation combines classical evaluation algorithms with vectorized PyTorch operations, emphasizing readability and maintainability without custom hardware kernels. Timing experiments compare curve evaluation against NumPy and SciPy and KAN training against EfficientKAN across a range of problem sizes. The results illustrate where this generality remains computationally practical and where overhead is substantial. Library is available on GitHub at https://github.com/alexshtf/torchcurves.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.IR
FERN: Cross-Benchmark Table Retrieval for Text-to-SQL with Frozen Retrievers and Learned Ranking
Arjun Rao, Nishant Gopinath
Text-to-SQL systems over large pooled catalogs must first retrieve the tables a question needs. We compare against the published table recall of RASL, which uses Claude 3.5 models to extract keywords and select tables, on pooled BIRD, Spider, and Fiben catalogs. FERN (Feature-Engineered Ranking with No generative LLM) instead fuses three frozen retrievers into 100 candidates, describes each with up to 120 features, and reorders them with LightGBM rankers fitted once on BIRD's training questions. On Spider, where it was not fitted, its candidate pool alone reaches RASL's published recall at fifteen tables (98.0), and the ranker raises the share of questions with every gold table in the top five (complete@5) from 83.9% to 95.6%. At five tables, FERN's recall is within one point of RASL's on Spider (96.7 vs 97.0) and on BIRD with its evidence hints (96.6 vs 97.5), and 8.2 points below on BIRD without them (89.3). On 121 real BEAVER questions, without BEAVER fitting, its recall at fifteen (82.1) falls between two BEAVER-trained retrievers (80.8, 84.5), but its complete@15 is below both (49.6 vs 54.5 and 62.0). On Fiben, it falls far short at fifteen tables (54.2 vs 69.2, different question sets), although its recall at fifty is numerically close to RASL's question-only retrieval result (80.7 vs 79.4). On BIRD dev with evidence, non-retrieval features raise complete@5 by 7.7 points over retrieval signals alone. On BIRD dev, median latency is 208 ms per question on one A100, without hosted model calls.
#05Nov 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.