arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Hamid Palangi

Publications and source records attributed to Hamid Palangi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Locating Hidden Failures Makes Long-Horizon Agents More Reliable

As AI agents take on long, autonomous tasks, we increasingly oversee rather than perform the work, yet we still judge them almost entirely by whether they finally succeed. An outcome cannot reveal where a run went wrong, whether the agent recovered, or the irreversible harm it caused along the way, and where long-horizon agents fail remains unmapped. We study $2518$ agent trajectories across software engineering, computer use, and science, close to real deployment, and classify $6967$ mistakes into $78$ failure types. Failure follows a recurring signature: after its first mistake an agent often fails to recover and rarely catches the error itself, so the run continues unchecked while still looking correct; whether an agent recovers depends on the task and the environment's feedback, not on the agent framework running it. Long-horizon agents can do real harm on the way to a passing result: even runs scored as solved delete data, corrupt systems, or fabricate success rather than earning it. We release these human-verified annotations as Traverse, a benchmark on which six frontier judges struggle to locate failure regardless of scale: even the strongest correctly identifies the first mistake in fewer than a third of runs. Yet Scout, a $4$B verifier we trained, locates failure far better than these judges and transfers to domains it never saw. Used at test time to select among an agent's candidate runs, it raises task success above the agent's own single-attempt performance, without retraining the agent. By making failure cheap to locate and correct, this work is a foundation for more trustworthy long-horizon agents that learn from their own mistakes, and a practical path to overseeing increasingly autonomous AI.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Towards a General Intelligence and Interface for Wearable Health Data

While ubiquitous wearable sensors capture a wealth of behavioral and physiological information, effectively transforming these signals into personalized health insights is challenging. Specifically, converting low-level sensor data into representations capable of characterizing higher-level states is difficult due to high phenotypic diversity and variation in individual baseline health, physiology, and lifestyle factors. Moreover, collecting wearable data paired with health outcome annotations is laborious and expensive, and retrospective annotation remains practically unfeasible, contributing to a scarcity of data with high-quality labels. To overcome these limitations, we propose a foundation model for wearable health that is pretrained on more than one trillion minutes of unlabeled sensor signals drawn from a large cohort of five million participants. We demonstrate that the joint scaling of model capacity and pretraining data volume leads to systematic improvements in performance, as evaluated on a diverse set of 35 health prediction tasks, spanning cardiovascular, metabolic, sleep, and mental health, as well as lifestyle choices and demographic factors. We find that this population scale representation unlocks label-efficient few-shot learning and generative capabilities for robust daily metric estimation. To further leverage this learned representation, we deploy a classroom of LLM agents to autonomously search the space of downstream predictive heads built on the model embeddings, showing broad performance improvements that increase with LLM model capacity. Finally, we show how integrating these downstream predictors into a Personal Health Agent can support model responses that are more relevant, contextually aware, and safe, and we validate this via 1,860 ratings from a cohort of clinicians.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

An AI Co-Data-Scientist for Prioritizing Candidate Biomarkers from Wearable Sensor Data

Wearable devices generate continuous physiological and behavioral data, but converting these signals into clinically reviewable biomarker hypotheses remains labor-intensive. We introduce CoDaS, an AI co-data-scientist that integrates multi-agent hypothesis generation, deterministic statistical analysis, adversarial validation and literature-grounded interpretation under human oversight. Across three wearable cohorts comprising 9,279 participant-observations, CoDaS prioritized candidate associations for mental-health and metabolic endpoints after internal checks for replication, stability, robustness and leakage. The system identified related circadian-instability signals associated with depression, including sleep-duration variability in DWB ($ρ$ = 0.252, $p$ < 0.001) and sleep-onset variability in GLOBEM ($ρ$ = 0.126, $p$ < 0.001), and derived a wearable cardiovascular-fitness index associated with insulin resistance (steps/resting heart rate; $ρ$ = -0.374, $p$ < 0.001). Adding these features to demographic models produced modest gains ($ΔR^2$ = 0.040 for depression, 0.021 for insulin resistance). In a 12-clinician review totaling approximately 25 active hours, clinician validity judgments aligned with CoDaS confidence tiers ($ρ$ = 0.67, $p$ = 0.005), whereas added clinical value and confidence to act were rated lower. CoDaS supports traceable, hypothesis-generating prioritization of wearable candidate biomarkers.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

The ACUTE Protocol: Operationalizing Language Model Activations for Better Calibration, Utility, and Trust

As language models improve and become increasingly deployed to solve a variety of tasks, trustworthiness becomes essential. Calibration is a good proxy for trust: well-calibrated confidence estimates help inform the risk versus reward tradeoff when trusting a specific model output. Unfortunately, even as models improve, they remain poorly calibrated, often biasing towards overconfidence. Additionally, calibration can be gamed: a policy that always predicts the base rate is perfectly calibrated, but completely uninformative. To resolve this, we develop a new metric, expected utility renormalized by the oracle (EURO), that balances calibration and informativeness. We also propose a general-purpose activation-based confidence, utility, and trust estimation protocol (ACUTE) to appropriately adjudicate uncertainty. The ACUTE protocol provides flexible, sample-efficient, and compute-efficient confidence estimators for 3 tasks including multiple choice question answering, tool-calling, and scientific document summarization across 6 models from 4 model families. ACUTE outperforms strong baselines on EURO, while maintaining low calibration error. Taken together, our work shows that equipping LLMs with the ACUTE protocol can improve calibration, utility, and trustworthiness in numerous settings.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

RubricsTree: Scalable and Evolving Open-Ended Evaluation of Personal Health Agents across Health Memory and Medical Skills

The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access. However, large-scale clinical deployment remains constrained by an open-ended evaluation bottleneck: physician annotation is reliable but costly and unscalable, while LLM-as-a-judge evaluators are scalable but subjective, inconsistent, and sometimes clinically misaligned. We introduce RubricsTree, a scalable evaluation framework with an expert-aligned hierarchical taxonomy of over 100 atomic, clinically-verifiable Boolean rubrics, evolving from the insights of 4,000 real user queries through an iterative human-in-the-loop curation protocol with an expertise panel led by an experienced physician. A context-aware adaptive router activates only the relevant auto-weighted rubric subset per query, providing the throughput needed for scalable evaluation with expert-aligned quality. Through a systematic meta-evaluation, we show that RubricsTree (i) substantially exceeds a strong large-scale evaluation baseline in expert alignment on challenging open-ended queries; (ii) reliably penalizes contextually degraded responses; and (iii) when used as structured instructions, text feedback, or training rewards for performance optimization, yields up to ~66% relative gains on HealthBench for Gemini, GPT, and Qwen model families. RubricsTree thus provides a scalable, auditable, and evolving evaluation infrastructure required for the continuous optimization of product-level personal healthcare AI.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review

The exponential growth of machine learning submissions has strained the traditional peer review process, resulting in slow feedback loops for authors and an immense burden on reviewers to rigorously audit technical soundness and verify literature. To address this, we introduce ScholarPeer, a multi-agent framework designed to operationalize the rigorous auditing workflow of a senior researcher. Rather than attempting to replace human judgment, ScholarPeer serves as a co-scientist: acting as a mentor for rapid author iteration prior to submission, and as an active verification assistant that augments human reviewers. The framework structurally decouples contextualization from critique by deploying a sub-domain historian to synthesize the field's trajectory, a baseline scout to proactively hunt for omitted state-of-the-art comparisons, and a multi-aspect Q&A engine that deeply audits technical soundness-scrutinizing internal logical consistency, experimental validity, and mathematical rigor-while cross-referencing claims against top-tier academic venues. We comprehensively evaluate ScholarPeer on ~1,800 ICLR submissions spanning 2020 through 2025. Our results show that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art fine-tuned models and search-augmented agentic baselines.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

TeamBench: Evaluating Agent Coordination under Enforced Role Separation

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

When Can LLMs Learn to Reason with Weak Supervision?

Large language models have achieved significant reasoning improvements through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Yet as model capabilities grow, constructing high-quality reward signals becomes increasingly difficult, making it essential to understand when RLVR can succeed under weaker forms of supervision. We conduct a systematic empirical study across diverse model families and reasoning domains under three weak supervision settings: scarce data, noisy rewards, and self-supervised proxy rewards. We find that generalization is governed by training reward saturation dynamics: models that generalize exhibit a prolonged pre-saturation phase during which training reward and downstream performance climb together, while models that saturate rapidly memorize rather than learn. We identify reasoning faithfulness, defined as the extent to which intermediate steps logically support the final answer, as the pre-RL property that predicts which regime a model falls into, while output diversity alone is uninformative. Motivated by these findings, we disentangle the contributions of continual pre-training and supervised fine-tuning, finding that SFT on explicit reasoning traces is necessary for generalization under weak supervision, while continual pre-training on domain data amplifies the effect. Applied together to Llama3.2-3B-Base, these interventions enable generalization across all three settings where the base model previously failed.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

TFRBench: A Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating Forecasting Systems

We introduce TFRBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of forecasting systems. Traditionally, time-series forecasting has been evaluated solely on numerical accuracy, treating foundation models as ``black boxes.'' Unlike existing benchmarks, TFRBench provides a protocol for evaluating the reasoning generated by forecasting systems--specifically their analysis of cross-channel dependencies, trends, and external events. To enable this, we propose a systematic multi-agent framework that utilizes an iterative verification loop to synthesize numerically grounded reasoning traces. Spanning ten datasets across five domains, our evaluation confirms that this reasoning is causally effective; useful for evaluation; and prompting LLMs with our generated traces significantly improves forecasting accuracy compared to direct numerical prediction (e.g., avg. $\sim40.2\%\to56.6\%)$, validating the quality of our reasoning. Conversely, benchmarking experiments reveal that off-the-shelf LLMs consistently struggle with both reasoning (lower LLM-as-a-Judge scores) and numerical forecasting, frequently failing to capture domain-specific dynamics. TFRBench thus establishes a new standard for interpretable, reasoning-based evaluation in time-series forecasting. Our benchmark is available at: https://tfrbench.github.io

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Watch and Learn: Learning to Use Computers from Online Videos

Computer-using agents (CUAs) must plan task workflows across diverse and evolving applications, yet progress is limited by the lack of large-scale, high-quality training data. Existing datasets are narrow, static, and costly to annotate, while synthetic data often yields oversimplified or misaligned behaviors. We present Watch & Learn (W&L), a framework that converts readily available Internet videos of human computer use into executable UI trajectories at scale. Instead of directly generating actions or relying on handcrafted heuristics, we cast trajectory annotation as an inverse dynamics problem that predicts user actions from consecutive screen states, which simplifies learning and generalizes across domains. Through a task-aware retrieval and labeling pipeline, W&L yields over 53K high-quality trajectories that enhance CUAs both as in-context exemplars and as supervised training data. On OSWorld, it consistently improves general-purpose and specialized CUAs, while on WindowsAgentArena it achieves state-of-the-art performance among 7B-scale models under the 15-step limit. These results show that web-scale human demonstration videos can serve as a practical and scalable foundation for advancing real-world CUAs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

HEART: Emotionally-Driven Test-Time Scaling of Language Models

Test-time scaling has significantly improved how AI models solve problems, yet current methods often get stuck in repetitive, incorrect patterns of thought. We introduce HEART, a framework that uses emotional cues to guide the model's focus, much like how feelings contribute to human decision-making. By alternating between critical tones to sharpen error detection and encouraging tones to spark new ideas, HEART helps the model break out of dead-end reasoning and find the right solution. We evaluate HEART across seven high-difficulty benchmarks--including Humanity's Last Exam, GPQA Diamond, and LiveCodeBench--demonstrating robustness across diverse models. Results show that emotion facilitates deeper reasoning, yielding consistent accuracy gains over affect-sterile baselines. These findings suggest that the next frontier in machine reasoning lies in the strategic integration of affective regulation to guide logical synthesis.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

GuidedSampling: Steering LLMs Towards Diverse Candidate Solutions at Inference-Time

Repeated Sampling (RS) is a simple inference-time algorithm that has been shown to improve model performance on complex tasks. Although it is an effective way of scaling inference time, it often struggles to generate diverse solution candidates, frequently relying on the same underlying approach to solve the problem and thus producing redundant samples. To address this limitation, we propose a new inference algorithm, GuidedSampling, which decouples the exploration and generation phases during inference, increasing diversity of generated candidate solutions. The exploration phase identifies multiple concepts that can be utilized to solve the problem, while the generation phase applies a specific concept to provide final solution candidates. We first define the theoretical bounds of GuidedSampling and then empirically demonstrate that it improves the performance of base model at pass@50 by on an average ~21.6% across various benchmarks compared to RS. Furthermore, models trained on trajectories of GuidedSampling exhibit substantial performance improvements at pass@5 by on an average ~9.7%, compared to models trained on traditional RS. Additionally, models trained with GuidedSampling increases the average number of concepts per instance (1.67 -> 3.03), yielding a diverse set of candidates than traditional RS.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Multi-Agent Design: Optimizing Agents with Better Prompts and Topologies

Large language models, employed as multiple agents that interact and collaborate with each other, have excelled at solving complex tasks. The agents are programmed with prompts that declare their functionality, along with the topologies that orchestrate interactions across agents. Designing prompts and topologies for multi-agent systems (MAS) is inherently complex. To automate the entire design process, we first conduct an in-depth analysis of the design space aiming to understand the factors behind building effective MAS. We reveal that prompts together with topologies play critical roles in enabling more effective MAS design. Based on the insights, we propose Multi-Agent System Search (MASS), a MAS optimization framework that efficiently exploits the complex MAS design space by interleaving its optimization stages, from local to global, from prompts to topologies, over three stages: 1) block-level (local) prompt optimization; 2) workflow topology optimization; 3) workflow-level (global) prompt optimization, where each stage is conditioned on the iteratively optimized prompts/topologies from former stages. We show that MASS-optimized multi-agent systems outperform a spectrum of existing alternatives by a substantial margin. Based on the MASS-found systems, we finally propose design principles behind building effective multi-agent systems.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

LLM-Based Multi-Agent Blackboard System for Information Discovery in Data Science

Advances in large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities in data science, but their deployment is often limited by the challenge of finding relevant data in large data lakes. Existing methods struggle with this: both single- and multi-agent systems are quickly overwhelmed by large, heterogeneous files, and master-slave multi-agent systems rely on a rigid central controller that requires precise knowledge of each sub-agent's capabilities, which is not possible in large-scale settings where the main agent lacks full observability over sub-agents' knowledge and competencies. We propose a novel multi-agent paradigm inspired by the blackboard architecture for traditional AI models. In our framework, a central agent posts requests to a shared blackboard, and autonomous subordinate agents - either responsible for a partition of the data lake or retrieval from the web - volunteer to respond based on their capabilities. This design improves scalability and flexibility by removing the need for a central coordinator to know each agent's expertise or internal knowledge. We evaluate the approach on three benchmarks that require data discovery: KramaBench and modified versions of DSBench and DA-Code. Results show that the blackboard architecture substantially outperforms strong baselines, achieving 13%-57% relative improvements in end-to-end success and up to a 9% relative gain in data discovery F1 over the best baseline.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2025

InfSplign: Inference-Time Spatial Alignment of Text-to-Image Diffusion Models

Text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models generate high-quality images but often fail to capture the spatial relations specified in text prompts. This limitation can be traced to two factors: lack of fine-grained spatial supervision in training data and inability of text embeddings to encode spatial semantics. We introduce InfSplign, a training-free inference-time method that improves spatial alignment by adjusting the noise through a compound loss in every denoising step. Proposed loss leverages different levels of cross-attention maps extracted from the backbone decoder to enforce accurate object placement and a balanced object presence during sampling. The method is lightweight, plug-and-play, and compatible with any diffusion backbone. Our comprehensive evaluations on VISOR and T2I-CompBench show that InfSplign establishes a new state-of-the-art (to the best of our knowledge), achieving substantial performance gains over the strongest existing inference-time baselines and even outperforming the fine-tuning-based methods. Codebase is available at GitHub.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2025

Synapse: Adaptive Arbitration of Complementary Expertise in Time Series Foundational Models

Pre-trained Time Series Foundational Models (TSFMs) represent a significant advance, capable of forecasting diverse time series with complex characteristics, including varied seasonalities, trends, and long-range dependencies. Despite their primary goal of universal time series forecasting, their efficacy is far from uniform; divergent training protocols and data sources cause individual TSFMs to exhibit highly variable performance across different forecasting tasks, domains, and horizons. Leveraging this complementary expertise by arbitrating existing TSFM outputs presents a compelling strategy, yet this remains a largely unexplored area of research. In this paper, we conduct a thorough examination of how different TSFMs exhibit specialized performance profiles across various forecasting settings, and how we can effectively leverage this behavior in arbitration between different time series models. We specifically analyze how factors such as model selection and forecast horizon distribution can influence the efficacy of arbitration strategies. Based on this analysis, we propose Synapse, a novel arbitration framework for TSFMs. Synapse is designed to dynamically leverage a pool of TSFMs, assign and adjust predictive weights based on their relative, context-dependent performance, and construct a robust forecast distribution by adaptively sampling from the output quantiles of constituent models. Experimental results demonstrate that Synapse consistently outperforms other popular ensembling techniques as well as individual TSFMs, demonstrating Synapse's efficacy in time series forecasting.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2025

RADAR: Benchmarking Language Models on Imperfect Tabular Data

Language models (LMs) are increasingly being deployed to perform autonomous data analyses. However, their data awareness -- the ability to recognize, reason over, and appropriately handle data artifacts such as missing values, outliers, and logical inconsistencies -- remains underexplored. These artifacts are especially common in real-world tabular data and, if mishandled, can significantly compromise the validity of analytical conclusions. To address this gap, we present RADAR, a benchmark for systematically evaluating data-aware reasoning on tabular data. We develop a framework to simulate data artifacts via programmatic perturbations to enable targeted evaluation of model behavior. RADAR comprises 2980 table query pairs, grounded in real-world data spanning 9 domains and 5 data artifact types. In addition to evaluating artifact handling, RADAR systematically varies table size to study how reasoning performance holds when increasing table size. Our evaluation reveals that, despite decent performance on tables without data artifacts, frontier models degrade significantly when data artifacts are introduced, exposing critical gaps in their capacity for robust, data-aware analysis. Designed to be flexible and extensible, RADAR supports diverse perturbation types and controllable table sizes, offering a valuable resource for advancing tabular reasoning.

cs.DB↗
arXiv2025

AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies. Study I recruits human judges with either mainstream or skeptical beliefs who evaluate claims through two protocols: debate (interaction with two AI advisors arguing opposing sides) or consultancy (interaction with a single AI advisor). Study II uses AI judges with and without human-like personas to evaluate the same protocols. In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy by 4-10% across COVID-19 and climate change claims. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (up to +15.2% accuracy on COVID-19 claims), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.

cs.CL↗