arXiv:2608.21098v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Fusing prior knowledge with data-driven learning is attractive where data is scarce, yet no controlled account says when it helps, is redundant, or har...
By Ahmad AlMughrabi, Albert Clop, Benjamin Busam, Ricardo Marques, Petia Radeva
arXiv:2609.36426v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: A detector pretrained on a broad corpus is fine-tuned on a narrow domain, its in-domain accuracy improves, and it ships. We ask what happens meanwhil...
By Trung Minh Bui, Jongsul Moon, YoungOuk Kim, Jung-Hoon Hwang, Dongin Shin
arXiv:2608. 12652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark contamination is diagnosed today with n-gram overlap, with likelihood-based membership inference, or with canary strings, and each needs something usually unavailable: the training corpus, a well-chosen test statistic, or foresight at dataset release.
By Florian Braun
The paper investigates when an in‑context learner should expand its hypothesis space, framing the decision as a costly sequential problem where prediction failures must be translated into structural evidence and then into an action. Using a Structural Revision Environment that allows exact Bayesian analysis, the authors find that the optimal decision to expand is governed by a value boundary rather than a simple evidence threshold, and that this boundary depends on the price of expansion, the remaining horizon, and the specific predictions that cannot be repaired locally. Experiments with transformers and language models show that while these models exhibit a failure‑sensitive signal, they often fail to incorporate cost and horizon considerations into their expansion decisions, and post‑training adjustments to priors or prediction sharpness do not alter the expansion criterion.
By Weihan Li, Xinlei Chen, Junhao Wu, Tianshi Zheng
arXiv:2609.01244v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Every supervised fine-tuning run forces the same chain of decisions, such as learning rate, batch size, LoRA or full fine-tuning, how many epochs, whic...
By Charles O'Neill, Mudith Jayasekara, Harry Partridge
The paper investigates how conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) benchmarks that rely on relevance judgments to determine context sufficiency can be misleading. By re‑running official baselines on the RETECO track and evaluating with both large‑language‑model judges and a blind audit, the authors show that stronger retrievers produce a higher proportion of contexts lacking gold documents yet still containing the answer, leading to a sharp drop in shortcut precision from 0.68 to 0.10. The study demonstrates that many false misses arise from hard negatives, gold content from other turns, or neighboring chunks, and that using retrieval scores alone as a sufficiency detector can underestimate answerability by up to 0.19 in AUROC.
By Ivan Kochergin, Vasily Konovalov