José María Lago, Albert Castellana, Edgars Nemšestat.ME cs.AI
Natural-language tasks can elicit different verdicts from protocol-following evaluators that receive the same declared information. We study aggregate disambiguation systems (ADSs). Given a task and a candidate solution, each evaluator casts a binary vote on whether the solution should be accepted, and the system aggregates the votes of a finite panel. The target is protocol reproducibility relative to an explicitly declared evaluator reference, not semantic truth. We separate fixed finite censuses, probabilistic evaluator populations, and growing-census limits, since their endpoint laws and guarantees are not interchangeable. In the population setting, we use finite samples to estimate how often a finite panel reaches the same decision as the declared evaluator population. We provide a lower confidence bound on the fraction of candidate solutions for which the disagreement probability is at most a chosen tolerance. The calculation accounts separately for sampling candidate solutions and sampling evaluators. The construction permits arbitrary dependence among columns induced by shared evaluator rows and uses exact binomial intervals at the evaluator layer and an exact one-sided binomial inversion at the generator layer. Simulations check the implementation against known population coverages and expose power limitations.
WEASEL 2.0 is a dictionary-based time series classifier that combines dilated sliding windows with a randomised hyperparameter ensemble and a fixed-size dense feature representation. Two of its hyperparameter choices, the maximum ensemble size and the maximum window size, are specified by simple thresholding rules whose chosen thresholds are not empirically justified in the original paper. In this work we reproduce WEASEL 2.0 on 114 UCR datasets, achieving a mean accuracy of 0.865 and median of 0.928, closely matching the published values (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p = 0.655). We then test the sensitivity of four design choices: the downstream classifier, the absence of feature weighting, the maximum window-size rule, and the maximum ensemble-size rule. The first three are robust to perturbation. The fourth is over-provisioned for long-series datasets, motivating an adaptive rule that sets the maximum ensemble size from series length and number of classes. Evaluated on fixed-length datasets, the adaptive rule reduces peak fit memory by a median of 37 MB (mean 395 MB) and fit time by a median of 0.4 s (mean 4 s), with a median accuracy change of 0% (mean -0.11%). Memory and time savings concentrate on long-series datasets where the original rule allocates the largest ensemble size.
Joint Energy-Based Models (JEM) unify classification and generation within a single network and support out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Canonical JEM training relies on stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD); a theoretically motivated alternative, the Predictor-Corrector (PC) sampler, has not previously undergone a systematic replication test on the canonical model. We reproduce canonical JEM on WideResNet-28-10 without normalisation layers on two independent runs and test whether PC retains its theoretical advantage without an annealed noise schedule, across three protocols: PC replacing SGLD throughout the roughly 130 training epochs; cold-start generation (FID); and refinement-style multi-OOD detection (AUROC). The reconstruction reaches 92.88% test accuracy and buffer-FID 44.46 (canonical: 92.9% and 38.40). We document two failure modes: catastrophic late-training divergence via the canonical outlier-buffer mechanism (both SGLD runs and, with the same signature, both PC runs), and run-dependent SVHN OOD-discrimination dynamics. No method-level advantage of PC over SGLD is observed on any protocol: at inference the absolute AUROC difference stays below 0.007 across all ten checkpoint-OOD pairs and the FID difference below 0.5; on the training protocol a hierarchical seed-by-image bootstrap gives a 95% confidence interval on the macro-averaged AUROC difference that contains zero, while a seed-level equivalence test with two runs per method cannot establish formal equivalence. The data are consistent both with equivalence and with a small directional effect. This practical indistinguishability is theoretically expected: under fixed noise the PC predictor step degenerates by construction, so its guarantees do not transfer to canonical JEM.
Amirali Rayegan, Lunxiao Li, Tim Menziescs.SE cs.LG
In software analytics, rerunning the same analysis twice often yields different models and conclusions. This reduces trust in the model and limits its use. We find that model instability is a major problem. Across 127 multi-objective SE optimization problems (12,700 test cases), repeated runs of a state-of-the-art optimizer agree on only 13.7% of test cases, even under improved settings. We argue that this instability is not merely noise to tolerate, but a property that can be measured and managed. By adjusting how labels are spent, how complex the models become, and how splits are scored, we obtain models that agree 4.8 times as often as the default configuration. The standard deviation of optimization error falls by 22% on average (mean std 17.4 to 13.6), while recommendation quality improves rather than degrades. In terms of quality, the refined settings are statistically top-ranked on 119 of 127 datasets, compared to 74 for the defaults. We then test causal and data-locality interventions and find that they help only partially, suggesting a residual stability floor. Our evidence suggests there are fundamental limits to stability set by the data itself (noise, scarce labels, proxy objectives, and the many near-equivalent models a dataset admits). We conclude that instability should be treated as a standard evaluation axis in SE optimization, which should be routinely measured, reported alongside performance, and used to calibrate trust in any single run. The methods in this paper provide a baseline against which future efforts to reduce SBSE instability can be judged. To support open science, we offer the following reproduction package: https://tinyurl.com/Model-Instability
Grokking -- the delayed onset of generalization long after a network has fit its training set - -is usually studied in models too large to read completely and reported from single training runs. We instead study a publicly released ~11,856-parameter Llama-style transformer (Glimmer-1-Base) on modular arithmetic, small enough to enumerate its weights, attention, and full input-output map, and we measure grokking as a multi-seed rate rather than a single outcome. In this fully-tractable regime grokking is a conditional, fragile phase transition. It is gated by training-set coverage, whose threshold tracks output cardinality (the modulus) more than task structure, an ordering that holds above the transition and across a ten-fold change in domain size. Weight decay reproduces the Omnigrok inverted-U at 12K parameters, a positive control on the rate measurement. Grokking also sits on a numerical knife-edge: two perturbations of the floating-point environment -- CPU thread count (reduction order) and CPU-versus-GPU execution -- each flip a minority of same-seed outcomes without a detectable shift in the aggregate rate. Decomposition into sub-task specialists helps chiefly by making coverage cheap rather than by adding supervision. Methodologically, multi-seed control under a fixed numerical environment overturns three dramatic single-run narratives in our own data, each a seed confound. The unit of evidence for grokking must therefore be a multi-seed rate under a pinned numerical environment, checked where possible against a direct reading of the model.