#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 10, 2026
math.ST
Nonparametric Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Mixtures of Logistic Regressions
Muheng Li, Peize Zhang, Xin Bing
Mixtures of logistic regressions provide a flexible framework for modeling binary responses, extending standard logistic regression to accommodate unobserved heterogeneity while retaining an interpretable regression structure. In this paper, we study such models with an unspecified mixing distribution. We analyze a sieve nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator (NPMLE) and derive nonasymptotic bounds on the estimation error of the resulting mixture regression function under both fixed and random designs. Our results reveal an explicit tradeoff between statistical estimation error and the approximation error induced by the sieve radius, from which we derive convergence rates under several tail conditions on the mixing distribution. For computation, we propose a finite-particle algorithm that approximates the sieve NPMLE by optimizing the locations and weights of a finitely supported mixing distribution. The method offers numerical advantages over existing algorithms and comes with rigorous convergence guarantees. For any fixed dataset, we establish global convergence of the likelihood to the restricted NPMLE value when the number of particles exceeds a finite threshold. When the true mixing distribution is finitely supported, we further establish uniform global convergence guarantees and derive error bounds that separate algorithmic and statistical errors. Our analysis also yields a denoising bound for the mixing distribution and an identifiability result that complements existing results in the literature.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
AutoScaffold: AI-Guided Scaffolding for Reinforcement Learning of Language Models
Zijian Zhang, Rizhen Hu, Jiangweizhi Peng and 4 more
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) produces rich training experience, yet outcome rewards reduce each attempt to a single number and leave most of this information unused. Training-time scaffolds, such as strategies or hints added to the prompt during training, offer a natural way to turn this information into guidance, but their design and adaptation are largely left to humans and tailored to specific domains. We introduce AutoScaffold, a unified AI-for-AI framework that turns a student's training experience into adaptive scaffolds, with minimal domain-specific information and no human intervention during training. A frozen teacher periodically examines this experience, diagnoses bottlenecks, and designs scaffolds in two forms: (i) strategies shared across a class of tasks and (ii) hints for individual hard tasks, adjusting the content and amount of support as the student learns. The scaffolds are removed at evaluation. We apply the same framework to ALFWorld, search-based QA, mathematical reasoning, and GPU kernel generation. When evaluated without scaffolds, students trained with AutoScaffold outperform those trained with the corresponding RL baselines in all four domains, with gains of 7.2 points in ALFWorld success and 4.0 points in average QA exact match. On GPU kernel generation, AutoScaffold increases the fraction of tasks with a correct kernel that runs faster than the PyTorch reference by up to 5.0 points. On math, our student surpasses QuestA's reported accuracy using approximately one-third as many student training steps. Analyses show that the teacher identifies a different failure in each task class and shifts its scaffolds from step-by-step workflows to targeted fixes as the student improves, and that its revised scaffolds help the student learn more than keeping the previous scaffold or using no scaffold.
#05Nov 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.