#01Nov 10, 2026
cs.CV
A Lightweight Differentiable Method for Real-Time Skin Rendering and Digitization
Mario Marquez-Balduque, Carlos Rodriguez-Pardo, Jorge Lopez-Moreno
Inverse rendering for skin typically relies on offline path tracing to estimate physical properties, which fail to map directly to the approximate shaders utilized in interactive applications, such as game engines. We bridge this gap by directly estimating subsurface scattering parameters tailored for real-time rendering pipelines. We introduce a differentiable Screen-Space Subsurface Scattering (SSSS) framework that enables the joint optimization of spatially varying base textures and scattering distances. To account for local variations in skin thickness, we estimate these parameters across distinct facial regions, generating a blended profile map ready for production runtime engines. Our pipeline utilizes a low-cost, single-light, single-view capture setup designed for accessible and practical appearance acquisition. Optimization is driven by a masked loss function targeting regions where subsurface scattering effects are dominant. We validate our approach on a real-world dataset of $45$ individuals across the Monk Skin Tone Scale, ensuring demographic generalization. Furthermore, we complement this evaluation with synthetic data, a multi-light setup validating our single-light assumption, and a tilted-view configuration confirming angular consistency. Results demonstrate that our method effectively recovers scattering parameters from lightweight inputs, yielding realistic skin appearance directly compatible with standard real-time shaders.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
Continual-ARC: Measuring Skill Acquisition over a Working Lifetime
Daniel Lenton
Agent harnesses have emerged as a promising mechanism for continual learning, alongside test-time parametric learning. However, the current benchmarks have several limitations: they generally focus on a single applied domain, serve each instance only once, and assume a single family of learner, so memory-based and weight-based systems are rarely compared on the same scale. We propose Continual-ARC, a lifelong stream built from the three ARC-AGI editions, whose tasks need no domain knowledge. The same tasks return after dormant gaps with fresh instances, while new tasks keep arriving. On each instance, the learner may pay for demonstrations, submit answers, or act inside the harness, with retries permitted on incorrect submissions, which are paid for. Each instance is scored based on the share of this feedback budget consumed. Since a learner may keep anything between instances, memory-based and weight-based systems are scored on the same scale. After the stream, the learner is frozen and tested on fresh instances of the tasks it met, which measures memorization, and on unseen tasks, which measures generalization. We run an agent harness with frozen weights, with and without persistence, on Qwen3.5-9B and GLM-5.3 Flash, comparing them with two prompting floors, a program-induction method and Qwen3.5-9B's weights trained to imitate GLM-5.3 Flash. Persistence in the harness generally does not improve memorization unless provided with explicit expert guidance. Most harness-based methods still learn less than a floor that simply caches each task's demonstrations, across all models we tested. No harness-based method gains on unseen tasks, whereas weight-based learning shows substantial gains. This opens the door to future weight-based continual learning that could teach models to drive harnesses in new domains.
#03Nov 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.
#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
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.