Self-consistency via majority vote reduces per-problem accuracy on most GPQA Diamond problems for small instruction-tuned models: 56.6% of problems for Qwen2.5-7B and 65.7% for Llama-3-8B. The obvious remedy is a verifier-free confidence gate. This version reports that the most natural repair also fails, and separates three signal failures that v1 treated as one. A token-entropy gate fails for a measurement reason: averaged over a chain of some 602 tokens, the statistic is a measurement of the prose rather than of confidence in the answer. On Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-Turbo, 198 problems at 64 samples each, a sample whose answer contradicts its own problem's plurality still emits that answer at a median margin of 20.52 nats, with 75.7% above 10 nats. Both quantities were pre-registered and tested once on 69 problems no exploratory analysis had read; both passed. The unit is the whole result: pooled across the benchmark the margin separates correct from incorrect samples by +0.0604 on the fraction above 10 nats [+0.0183, +0.1017], excluding zero; per-problem and paired it does not, at -0.0168 [-0.0527, +0.0182], crossing zero. The claim is not that token log-probabilities carry no information, but that a signal with real across-question discrimination is close to useless for the within-question decision a router faces. The plurality-agreement gate's failure remains without a mechanism, and we report it as an open problem. These new claims rest on one model: a registered second-model replication was sampled and could not be evaluated, and we report that rejection rather than the result. We separately report that on hosted serverless inference at a small budget, three reasoning-native models could not be evaluated, for three separately measured reasons; all three are downloadable, so this bounds what a metered per-token API buys rather than what is knowable.
Reza Ahmari, Vahid Hemmati, Parham Kebria +3cs.RO cs.CV
Vision-based heading prediction is useful for UAV--UGV cooperation, but accurate prediction alone does not guarantee that every predicted heading should be issued directly as a control command. This paper investigates the decision problem of when and how a fixed vision-based heading predictor should be trusted for command issuance. A lightweight confidence-gated framework is proposed in which execution decisions are made using two interpretable reliability proxies derived from the perception stream: bounding-box area as a visibility-related proxy and short-window variation in predicted heading as a stability-related proxy. During low-confidence intervals, the framework compares the baseline freeze-HOLD policy with a bounded-blend fallback that updates the issued command conservatively. The method is evaluated on a real UAV--UGV dataset under clean and perturbed conditions. The results show that confidence gating creates a clear trade-off among execution rate, executed-frame accuracy, issued-command accuracy, and smoothness. The results further show that sparse execution can cause severe stale-command error under the baseline freeze-HOLD policy, whereas the bounded-blend fallback substantially improves command-level behavior under the same gate decisions. These findings highlight that reliable perception-driven autonomy depends not only on prediction accuracy, but also on decision-aware command issuance during low-confidence
We propose a unified meta-decoding framework for quantum error correction that learns syndrome-to-recovery mappings across multiple stabilizer codes and noise settings, without requiring separate decoders for each configuration. The benchmark includes FiveQubit, Steane, Planar3x3, and Planar5x5 codes, four noise families, and five evaluation regimes: interpolation, unseen-p transfer, unseen-noise transfer, few-shot unseen-code adaptation, and few-shot held-out-size adaptation. We compare a classical Meta-MLP teacher-trained baseline with variational quantum circuit (VQC) meta-decoders selected through hardware-aware quantum architecture search over qubit count, circuit depth, and entangling topology. The Meta-MLP achieves teacher-label accuracies of 0.9993, 0.9118, 0.9342, 0.6304, and 0.7548 across the five regimes, while the hardware-aware VQC achieves 0.9400, 0.8495, 0.8415, 0.5678, and 0.7143. However, logical-level evaluation shows that high teacher-label accuracy alone is insufficient in the most challenging Planar5x5 setting. During interpolation, the raw logical-failure ratios relative to the teacher are 12.08 and 25.91 for the Meta-MLP and VQC, respectively, whereas confidence-gated fallback reduces them to 1.71 and 1.11. These results support confidence-aware selective recovery rather than unconditional teacher replacement.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.