#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.RO
TanCRAFT: Context-Reasoned Anticipatory Feedback for Assembly Tasks
Sassan Mokhtar, Lars Doorenbos, Marius Bock and 4 more
Preventing human error in physical assembly tasks requires assistance systems that can intervene before mistakes are made. This is especially challenging in settings where users are free to choose the construction order and correctness depends on the evolving assembly rather than a fixed next step. We present TanCRAFT, a four-stage real-time predictive assistance system that tracks the scene state, reasons about the current partial assembly, forecasts the near-future motion of manipulated pieces, and intervenes when the predicted placement is incompatible with the target. We instantiate our framework and confirm its effectiveness in a controlled tangram assembly task through offline benchmarks and a within-subject user study. Our findings show that the predictive feedback significantly reduces mistakes relative to unguided and reactive sessions, while yielding the lowest mean perceived workload and shortest mean completion time. Overall, these results demonstrate the value of predictive feedback for error prevention and provide a step toward cost-aware assistance for automation and human-robot workcells.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.CL
Pterodactyl: Pushing the Limits of Efficient Automated Translation Evaluation
Evelyn Y. Garland, Carola F. Berger
In this paper, we present 1020 Group's submission to the WMT26 shared task on automated quality evaluation. Our system, Pterodactyl, was engineered specifically for subtasks 2 and 3, that is, segment-level quality score prediction and the detection of error-free segments. Pterodactyl is a highly customizable, ultra-low cost system optimized for binary classification in translation triage and data curation. It is based on an LLM-as-a-judge approach, with prompt engineering and model selection guided by ROC analysis. We also developed several variants of Pterodactyl that were specifically adapted for subtasks 3.
#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.