ML Reads

Personal arXiv list

ML papers to read today.

Pick a topic and keep a small daily list of papers worth opening.

Refresh queueDaily mix

Today's queue

5 papers

#01Nov 10, 2026

stat.ME

One Curve, Different Weights: AUC, the Brier Score, Decision-Weighted AUC, and the Policy Youden Index

Yegor Baranovski

AUC and the Brier score are standard summaries of a binary risk score, yet they can rank models differently. We introduce a weighted AUC, AUC$_π$, which weights each pair of observations by how differently a decision maker with probability of acting $π$ treats them. We show that all three are built on weighted averages of one curve, the Youden index $J(t) = \mathrm{TPR}(t) - \mathrm{FPR}(t)$ across cutoffs $t$, and that the averages differ in the weights they put on the cutoffs. Each weights a cutoff by how much something rises across it: for AUC, the distribution of all scores; for the Brier score, the true probability $\mathbb{E}[Y \mid S]$; for AUC$_π$, the decision maker's probability of acting. Up to normalization, AUC$_π$ is the Brier skill score of the ideal forecast with its weight moved to the cutoffs the decision maker cares about. We also show that weighting pairs by $|π(s) - π(s')|$ is, up to scale, the only pair weight fixed in advance that makes a pair-weighted AUC an average of the Youden curve for every score distribution. As a ranking measure, AUC weights every model the same way. Hand (2009) shows that it can also be read as an average over cost thresholds, and in that reading each model weights the thresholds differently. The numerator of AUC$_π$, which we call the policy Youden index, is the expected share of class 1 a fixed policy acts on minus the expected share of class 0. It judges every model by the same policy and so avoids this; the full ratio AUC$_π$ does not.

#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.RO

One Policy for 100 Household Tasks: Our Solution for the 2026 BEHAVIOR Challenge

Ilia Larchenko, Gleb Zarin, Atindra Nair and 4 more

We describe our solution for the 2026 BEHAVIOR Challenge: 100 long-horizon household tasks in the OmniGibson simulator. We placed 9th on the final leaderboard, the only independent team in the top 10. The core of the solution is a single vision-language-action (VLA) model, one checkpoint for all 100 tasks, built on our 1st-place 2025 solution, which is based on $π_{0.5}$. On the 50 tasks shared with 2025, its Q rises from 0.260 to 0.371; across all 100 tasks it scores 0.392. Our main conclusion from 2025 was that the model was undertrained, so most of the 2026 work went into training the model for longer, optimizing some training parameters, making each training step slightly faster and reducing the gradient noise: a migration from 50 to 100 tasks (semantic stages built from the demonstrations' skill annotations, task and stage embeddings of new tasks warm-started from similar old ones, and a 21-dimensional action space matching the teleoperation controls); variance-reduced multi-sample flow matching with a simple noise-vs-compute model that picks the number of action-expert samples per observation without ablations; and a 200k-step training run, about one pass over the 211M frames of the demonstrations. A cloud evaluation infrastructure keeps a shared record with provenance, episode diagnostics and restorable simulator states, and runs six simulators on one GPU together faster than real time. On top of the learned policy, 14 tasks are routed to a GPT-6 Astra coding agent that controls the robot through observation and motion tools, starting every episode from a frozen copy of its own practice session on training instances. Across these 14 tasks, Astra's mean Q is 0.639, against 0.108 for the learned policy. The public submission included only part of the Astra results and scored 0.446 Q with 27.3% full-task success.

#04Nov 10, 2026

cs.CV

UGG: Unified Generative Geometry Model

Amani Kiruga, Zhiyi Li, Ruojin Cai and 4 more

Understanding 4D scenes is a core challenge in visual intelligence, requiring models to jointly capture scene geometry, appearance, and dynamics from partial observations. However, existing approaches are subdivided into feedforward models for direct geometric prediction, and generative models for visual synthesis. We introduce UGG, a unified framework for 4D scene understanding that jointly models RGB video and geometric representations such as depth and camera pose. By assigning different noise levels across modalities and time, UGG formulates visual generation and geometric prediction as conditional completion within a single generative model. This flexible formulation enables the model to learn from diverse, heterogeneous datasets with different subsets of geometric and visual annotations. Furthermore, our generative formulation enables inference-time search over multiple plausible scene hypotheses, using geometric evidence extracted from observed RGB frames to improve geometric prediction without ground truth geometry. We demonstrate UGG's effectiveness over non-unified baselines across camera-controlled video generation, depth estimation, and camera pose prediction, including in challenging sparse observation settings. Code and visualizations are available at https://ugg-model.github.io/

#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.