In many review workflows the verdict is the only thing retained. The passages behind it are not marked, because that annotation costs far more than recording the decision. We measure how much of that evidence a small language model can recover when it is post-trained on the verdicts alone, with no human evidence labels at any stage. On ContractNLI the human evidence spans are held out until evaluation. Matching the recorded verdict and agreeing with those spans are not the same thing: across six systems the two scores are only weakly related and rank the systems differently, so accuracy is a poor guide when the citations have to be reviewable. Label-only training on the bare verdict reaches accuracy 0.896 and span F1 0.564. Rejection sampling, which keeps a generated trace only when its verdict matches the record and then picks one by an automatic source-grounding score, reaches 0.797 and 0.556, against 0.747 and 0.493 before training. Verbatim citation rises from 0.597 to 0.729 under label-only training and to 0.701 under rejection sampling. One seed on one corpus cannot say which method is better, but both improve the evidence without anyone annotating it.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06962
Scarcity of labeled data limits development of deep learning biomarkers in oncology. We develop a two-stage AI model predicting pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer. The first stage learns the transcriptome from histopathology using 8,742 patients across 32 cancer types, corroborated by pathologist review and spatial agreement with measured expression. This simplifies the second stage to predicting pCR from inferred expression and clinical variables. Developed using 1,080 patients (five cohorts) and evaluated in 1,412 patients (nine cohorts), the model achieves a pooled AUROC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.85), discriminating responders within molecular subtypes. It outperforms histopathological biomarkers, remaining stable across intratumoral sampling and with minimal biopsy tissue. Ablations show transcriptome-wide inference improves discrimination over clinical variables alone or one-stage pathology models, and robustness by avoiding genomic assays' gene selection constraints. These results indicate that biologically informed compression may generalize to data-sparse applications in precision oncology.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03693
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support legal practice, education, and research, yet their reliability in national legal systems outside the United States remains largely undocumented. We introduce an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability on the Colombian legal system. The benchmark comprises 1,042 items spanning ten areas of law and three question formats (closed multiple-choice, semi-open, and open-ended IRAC), built through a human-in-the-loop pipeline with multi-stage expert review. We evaluate 15 contemporary proprietary and open-weight models with format-appropriate metrics. Accuracy on closed questions ranges widely, from 0.905 (Gemini 3.1 Pro) to 0.577, but on free-text legal answers factual correctness never exceeds 0.45 (on a 0-1 scale) for any model. We find a dissociation between answer relevancy and correctness (Spearman rho = -0.46): models reliably sound responsive while frequently being wrong, a pattern of particular concern for non-expert users. Closed-question accuracy and free-text correctness are strongly rank-correlated (rho = 0.94), so cheap multiple-choice screening predicts model ranking but overstates absolute reliability. An independent rubric-based LLM judge and blind human expert scoring both reproduce the free-text ranking (rho >= 0.88). The judge further reveals that only about half of the norms models cite are correct; the rest are wrong or non-existent. Reliability varies systematically by legal area and follows an inverted-U across question complexity. Our results indicate that current LLMs require expert supervision for Colombian legal tasks, and that grounding answers in authoritative sources is a promising path to higher reliability. We release the benchmark construction pipeline to support reproducible evaluation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03639
We describe the Writerslogic team's participation in the CLEF 2026 SimpleText shared task, addressing Task 1 (text simplification) and Task 2 (complexity spotting). For Task 1, we develop a multi-candidate generation pipeline using GPT-4o-mini that produces five simplification candidates per sentence at varying temperatures, then selects the best candidate using a reference-free scoring heuristic that rewards compression, source word retention, Cochrane Plain Language Summary vocabulary usage, and lexical simplicity. On Task 1.1 (sentence-level simplification), our Claude Sonnet 4 submission achieves SARI 47.43 and BLEU 14.21, the top-ranked sentence-level system (3rd on the combined Task 1 leaderboard, behind two document-level submissions). For Task 2, we fine-tune a DeBERTa-v3-large NLI model on 350K labeled (source, sentence) pairs, framing hallucination detection as natural language inference. The model reads the most relevant source sentence as premise and the candidate as hypothesis, directly learning to distinguish grounded from hallucinated content. On Task 2.1 (binary overgeneration identification), our fine-tuned DeBERTa system achieves 0.8081 document-level macro F1 (0.8085 in our best ensemble), the top-ranked entry within the identification track and 2nd among teams overall, behind AIIR Lab (0.8197). On Task 2.2 (multi-class error classification), our best submission reaches 0.804 multiclass accuracy, ranking 2nd among unique teams behind AIIR Lab (0.827). We evaluate both tasks on English and multilingual biomedical text from Cochrane systematic reviews.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03567
As dexterous hands proliferate, collecting data and training policies separately for every morphology becomes increasingly impractical. Scalable cross-embodiment learning therefore requires a unified representation that captures shared manipulation structure while preserving morphology-specific control. Differences in hands, tasks, datasets, and control interfaces prevent existing studies from isolating the effects of representation, pretraining, and architecture. We introduce DexJoCo-X, a benchmark and toolkit for controlled comparison across seven representative dexterous hands, six single-arm and bimanual tasks, and 2,100 balanced demonstrations. DexJoCo-X provides a matched multi-hand, multi-task protocol with common scenes, success criteria, and execution interfaces, redesigned glove-to-hand mappings, and an automated pipeline that expands reviewed demonstrations across randomized scenes. Using $\pi_{0.5}$, Ego-Pi, and Being-H0.5, we examine whether a shared action interface is sufficient for multi-hand learning. Expanding $\pi_{0.5}$ to an 80-dimensional bimanual output yields near-zero success. Ego-Pi preserves the pretrained action head through interleaved prediction and supports per-hand multi-task learning, but remains ineffective for seven-hand joint training. By contrast, Being-H0.5 combines cross-embodiment pretraining, a unified action space, and embodiment-aware experts, enabling one policy to control all seven hands. Within this architecture, function-aligned action slots achieve 47.7% mean success, compared with 47.0% for native coordinates and 33.1% for DexLatent. These results show that cross-embodiment representation depends on the entire learning system: action coordinates, pretraining, and architecture must jointly separate shared manipulation structure from embodiment-specific control.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03278
Quantifying conversational dynamics requires reliable identification of interactional units and their temporal boundaries, but speech activity alone does not distinguish conversational turns from listener feedback or within-turn pauses. We present an automated pipeline for extracting turns and backchannels from separate-channel recordings of spontaneous dyadic conversation, designed to provide a consistent first-pass annotation for subsequent human review. The pipeline combines voice activity detection, channel-energy filtering, temporal merging, automatic speech recognition, and context-based post-processing. We evaluated the pipeline on 99 ten-minute Danish conversations from 33 dyads using segment-level detection reliability and temporal boundary error. Conversations were recorded under both normal and asymmetric listening conditions. In the latter, speech-shaped noise was delivered to one participant through bone-conduction headphones. Overall detection reliability was F1=0.621, with similar performance for turns F1=0.624 and backchannels F1=0.618. For successfully matched segments, median absolute onset and offset errors were 0.150 and 0.160s for turns and 0.130 and 0.180s for backchannels, respectively. Mean errors were substantially larger for turn boundaries, indicating a smaller number of large boundary mismatches. Performance did not differ significantly across the two experimental listening conditions. In a four-conversation case study, pipeline-human agreement was lower and more variable than human inter-annotator agreement and varied across parameter settings. These results support the pipeline as an automated first pass within a semi-automated annotation workflow, providing a consistent basis for more standardised and reproducible annotation of conversational dynamics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03078
What makes a short story gripping; a news article newsworthy; or a math proof elegant? These constructs resist articulation or verification; their meaning is at least partially tacit. However, modern AI models are improved primarily via articulated constitutions, rubrics and verifiers (i.e. in RLAIF and RLVR); tacit components of preferences are typically understudied. We introduce a large, labeled preference dataset CreativePreferences, containing 2.8M texts labeled by 317M human preference judgments across 7 creative domains, with 42 benchmark tasks. We model these labels with executable programs, rubric banks and densely trained models (V, A and VAT, respectively). We observe robust articulability gaps, VAT-VA; and verifiability gaps, VAT-V; we estimate upper and lower bounds for each gap with a novel measurement approach that discovers articulable and verifiable metrics, identifies spurious variables and estimates the value of undiscovered metrics using capture-recapture. These gaps occur across all domains, even in domains traditionally treated as fully verifiable: correctness-centered domains (i.e. mathematics and software engineering) and claim- and novelty-centric domains (i.e. news, patents, peer review). The size of the gap varies based on domain (e.g. peer review and creative writing have the largest articulability gaps) and widens as more people take part in the judgment, consistent with Collins' collective tacit knowledge. We show two consequences: (1) on human generations, the full model more closely matches human preferences, often in disagreement with articulated criteria, and (2) in an analogy to Goodhart's law, articulating preference shifts it away from the tacit dimension. Articulability and verifiability gaps are consequential; we give recommendations on when tasks can be prompted; how learning mechanisms might improve; and when to leave judgments with humans.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03025
Programmable logic controllers (PLCs) coordinate industrial equipment by reading sensor inputs and issuing control commands. Evaluating whether large language model (LLM)-generated PLC programs satisfy task requirements and safety constraints requires observing how their commands affect device and workpiece states. We introduce PLCWorld, a common closed-loop execution environment and benchmark that couples Structured Text (ST) execution with simulated plant responses and sensor feedback. Grounded in control relations identified in industrial PLC programs and engineering documentation, PLCWorld contains 100 synthetic tasks and 473 registered task-condition pairs across Motion Control and Material Handling, with difficulty defined by control-dependency scope. A common protocol reports Task Success and Safety Violation separately. Validation combines practitioner review, reference and alternative programs, targeted counterexamples, specification-evaluator alignment checks, and comparisons with independent ST runtimes. Reference and alternative programs satisfy their applicable cases, while all 542 targeted counterexamples activate their designated evaluator rules under at least one registered condition. Execution Gap relates submission-profile acceptance to subsequent task failure or observed Safety Violation. Across the constructed task groups, direct GPT-5.5 achieves 82.70% Task Success on Easy cases but 25.10% on Hard cases. Evaluations of six LLMs and four adapted generation-and-verification workflows further expose differences between completion, safety, and generation cost. Our code, simulation environment, benchmark tasks, and baseline implementations are publicly available at this https URL.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02982
Large language models (LLMs) can infer user preferences from interaction histories and reviews, yet the rationales they generate may not reflect the information actually used for recommendation. A preference claim may be weakly supported by its selected evidence, or may have little effect on the final ranking. We refer to these two failures as the grounding-influence gap. We introduce PROVE-REC, a general framework for verifiable preference reasoning in LLM-based recommendation. Pass A converts the complete pre-target history into a compact preference proof consisting of positive and avoidance claims linked to selected evidence entries. Pass B predicts the next item using only the proof and its selected evidence, preventing the recommender from bypassing the reasoning path. To verify evidence-to-proof grounding, we compare the effect of masking selected evidence with masking a comparable control entry. To verify proof-to-recommendation influence, we remove a preference claim and measure the resulting decrease in the target item's ranking margin. A ranking-preservation objective further retains useful information from the complete history. Comprehensive experiments on wide-ranging real-world datasets demonstrate that PROVE-REC consistently outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-enhanced baselines, with improvements of up to 7.45%. Controlled ablations confirm the effectiveness of the two-pass architecture and verification objectives. Moreover, PROVE-REC produces claims that are more strongly grounded in historical evidence and more influential to recommendation while preserving ranking quality.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02968
Standard factual benchmarks assume clean monolingual prompts and exact-match scoring, two assumptions that break simultaneously in real-world multilingual deployment, from retrieval-augmented generation pipelines returning mixed-language passages to users pasting multilingual web content. We introduce Multilingual Distractor Interference (MDI), a lightweight and fully replicable evaluation protocol requiring no new data or annotation, in which factual questions are preceded by a semantically irrelevant foreign-language sentence, and evaluate five instruction-tuned LLMs across TruthfulQA and TriviaQA under eight distractor conditions (40,000 evaluations). Our central finding is a metric confound: for Llama-3.1-8B under a Hindi distractor, 58% of responses switch to Devanagari script, yielding a raw hallucination proxy of 0.710, but manual review reveals that 120 of 148 script-switched responses that were correct under clean conditions remain semantically correct despite being written in the wrong script, reducing the adjusted semantic hallucination rate to 0.470. All other models respond through abstention escalation with no hallucination increase. A paragraph-length English distractor triggers near-universal abstention (0.806-0.998) across all models, consistent with reading-comprehension confusion, a failure mode with direct consequences for multilingual RAG pipelines. TruthfulQA multiple-choice accuracy is unaffected under all single-sentence conditions. These results show that exact-match hallucination rates in mixed-language settings should be decomposed into script-switching and semantic error components before drawing conclusions about model reliability.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02926
Safety monitors help safeguard language-model agents interacting with external tools and environments, but conservative monitoring can generate many false alarms, consuming extensive review resources and weakening trust in alerts. Because false and genuine alarms often remain interleaved in native monitor scores, obtaining a reliable cutoff still requires substantial manual verification. In practice, a small set of verified-safe non-alarmed trajectories may be available while alarms remain unlabeled, naturally casting false-alarm auditing as a positive-unlabeled (PU) ranking problem. The key challenge is monitor-induced selection, since observed safe references are accepted by the monitor, while the hidden safe alarms of interest are precisely those it incorrectly flags, making the observed positives poorly representative of the positives to be recovered. To address this challenge, we propose a two-stage framework in which Trust-aware PU Supervision adapts safe references toward the alarm domain and protects plausible false alarms from excessive negative pressure, while Reliability-gated Rank Distillation consolidates consistent ordering preferences from multiple PU reference models into a single student. Consensus-guided Structural Refinement then improves the student ranking using hierarchical safe-reference support, alarm relations, and predicted reference consensus. The framework requires no alarm safety labels for fitting and leaves the underlying monitor unchanged. Across mainstream safety monitors, our method achieves a macro AUPRC of $0.6444$, outperforming eight evaluated PU baselines by 5.27--16.98 absolute percentage points; compared with PULDA, the strongest evaluated PU baseline, it recovers 33.3% more false alarms at a 5% review budget.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02925
LLMs are known to introduce stylistic changes into generated text, yet how these stylistic shifts affect model decisions on scientific tasks remains underexplored. In this paper, we focus on multimodal claim verification, where the goal is to determine whether a textual claim is grounded in a given piece of evidence. We apply two rewriting strategies: natural rewriting, which simulates how researchers routinely use LLMs to polish academic text, and controlled injection, which inserts a single LLM-associated word to isolate the effect of vocabulary choice. We evaluate 11 open-weight models spanning five VLM families and ranging from 2B to 38B parameters. We find that models are robust to these modifications: most show no significant drop in accuracy, and compared to prior work on review-score manipulation, verification appears far more stable. However, consistent probability shifts do occur. Hedging-oriented conditions produce significant shifts across nearly all models, while boosting conditions show a weaker effect and general polishing conditions (e.g., grammar correction, fluency improvement) have little effect.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02841
Automated liquid handlers execute digital protocols, but operators must assemble the deck and confirm that the physical setup matches the intended experiment. We present the Labware Setup Checker, a passive vision system that verifies deck preparation on an Opentrons Flex without modifying its hardware or firmware. A consumer webcam mounted outside the robot supplies images to a browser application. The checker segments the deck into slots, corrects slot assignments using the known deck geometry, classifies the labware, and compares the observed setup with a reference protocol library to report missing, misplaced, or unexpected labware. It operates independently of the robot controller and does not interrupt or gate a run. During SwabSeq Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP) pre-PCR deck preparation, the checker tracked a slot from empty to a base and then to the completed plate-and-base assembly, identifying the completed assembly in all 29 frames before robot motion. Across these frames, 95.1% of the 348 labware classifications for slots requiring exact matches agreed with the protocol reference. In 480 frames with partially occluded reservoirs, all 6,720 slot assignments were correct. Across three camera positions and two lighting conditions, slot assignment was 100% correct, and 97.73% of labware classifications matched the protocol reference. Median verification time was 2.10 s on a laptop using only its CPU and 4.24 s from frame capture to receipt of results during AWS deployment in the laboratory. These results show that an external camera and independent software can provide verification of deck setup against protocol requirements within seconds, allowing operators to review the physical setup before starting a run.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02668
Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03255
Systematic reviews condense clinical trials into evidence tables, yet clinicians can interrogate these tables only through database queries, and many questions concern attributes that the table does not record, such as a drug's target class or a harmonised endpoint. Here we introduce FD-SCoPE, a language-model framework that answers both kinds of question, exposes the query, the selected trials and the derivation rule behind every answer, and learns from expert corrections. On an oncology evidence table of 159 immune checkpoint inhibitor trial records, FD-SCoPE completed all 140 clinician-style tasks (alternatives, 90.7-97.9%). For questions needing derived attributes it retrieved 99.3% of relevant trial records at a positive predictive value of 89.8% and outperformed four alternative approaches (derived-value F1 77.7% versus 64.8-73.4%). Corrections on 299 questions, simulated from reference answers, raised F1 on 1,201 unseen questions from 77.9% to 84.9%. Language models coupled with executable queries, verified programs and expert feedback can give clinicians auditable access to trial evidence.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02576
Zero-shot classifiers are useful for routing user requests to specialized LLM tasks, but scoring every request against a large candidate set is expensive: a zero-shot NLI classifier must evaluate one premise-hypothesis pair per label, so cost scales linearly with taxonomy size. We study a student-guided teacher distillation pipeline for a fixed taxonomy of 60 LLM task categories: a compact ModernBERT classifier predicts the full category distribution in one forward pass and retrieves a small top-k candidate set, and a larger DeBERTa-v3 zero-shot NLI classifier reranks only those candidates rather than all 60 labels; the resulting teacher labels iteratively improve the student, which produces sharper candidates for the next round. Unlike generic embedding retrieval or clustering-derived shortlists used in extreme multi-label classification, our candidate generator is trained end-to-end on the target taxonomy and is the same model serving production traffic, distinguishing it from LLM-routing work that routes between candidate models, and from concurrent System-1 encoder-classifier proposals (e.g. TypeSafe AI's Jev and the open-source Laya project) whose training methodology is undocumented or RL-based. Our best student checkpoint reaches 77.5% teacher agreement on a 200-example evaluation set, and preliminary coverage measurements show Coverage@16 of 91-100%, suggesting top-k sets retain most of the teacher's decision-relevant information. We further show truncated top-k teacher scores should not be treated as full 60-class soft targets for KL distillation: zeroing untruncated classes destroys the dark knowledge soft-label distillation depends on, introducing systematic bias rather than a harmless sparse approximation. A complete evaluation, including coverage at multiple k on a held-out set, an embedding-retrieval baseline, and a larger human-reviewed test set, remains in progress.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02516
3D editing methods are usually tested on a single edit, yet an asset is built through a long sequence of revisions, each of which must implement the requested change while leaving everything else unchanged. We introduce EditHero, to our knowledge the first benchmark for long-horizon, part-level 3D editing, with natural-language instructions and target images for both geometry and texture. A deterministic assembly engine produces the exact target after every edit, and every sequence is reviewed by hand. We use EditHero to compare 2 opposite approaches to 3D editing. Non-agentic methods operate top down, regenerating the object from a learned 3D representation and inferring what to keep. In contrast, LLM/VLM agents operate bottom up, editing through code that inspects the mesh and rewrites only the parts required by instructions. The non-agentic methods often miss the requested change and disturb regions that should stay fixed. Most LLMs follow instructions more closely, and all of them preserve the unedited parts better, but each of their edits takes minutes. We will release the engine and the edit sequences to support research on reliable iterative 3D editing.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02298
Real-world enterprise data science and analytics workflows require reasoning across dozens of tables, performing statistical analyses, and acting on the results. Established text-to-SQL benchmarks evaluate query generation alone, and audits have found their answer keys frequently wrong. Because real enterprise warehouses are too sensitive to release, these benchmarks are built on public datasets where a business event fits in a single table. We introduce Argo-Bench, an evaluation framework comprising 210 data science and analytics tasks. Drawing on public data, peer-reviewed industry literature, and regulatory filings, we simulate a food delivery platform in New York City at true scale, with 81 million orders in 2024, grounded economics, fraud patterns, and marketplace incentives. We export this world to an ERP warehouse of 235 tables and 7.5 billion rows, modeled on the Oracle E-Business Suite schema. The simulator's ground-truth state is withheld from the warehouse the agent sees, so tasks require reconstructing facts by navigating the warehouse before acting on them. Argo-Bench goes beyond text-to-SQL: the agent files actions such as banning fraudulent accounts, allocating courier incentive budgets, or issuing back pay, and the grader scores each by its consequences in the simulator. Every task has an executable reference solution that demonstrates solvability using only the warehouse. The strongest of 14 frontier and open-weight models scores 95 or higher on only 34.8% of tasks and averages 59.5 points. We hope Argo-Bench drives progress toward agents that understand, navigate, and act within real data environments.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02122
Broadly applicable quantum advantage, particularly in classical data processing and machine learning, has been a fundamental open problem. In this work, we prove that a small quantum computer of polylogarithmic size can perform large-scale classification and dimension reduction on massive classical data by processing samples on the fly, whereas any classical machine achieving the same prediction performance requires exponentially larger size. Furthermore, classical machines that are exponentially larger yet below the required size need superpolynomially more samples and time. We provide evidence for these quantum advantages in real-world applications, including single-cell RNA sequencing and movie review sentiment analysis, demonstrating four to six orders of magnitude reduction in size with fewer than 60 logical qubits. These quantum advantages are enabled by quantum oracle sketching, an algorithm for accessing the classical world in quantum superposition using only random classical data samples. Combined with classical shadows, our algorithm circumvents the data loading and readout bottleneck to construct succinct classical models from massive classical data, a task provably impossible for any classical machine that is not exponentially larger than the quantum machine. These quantum advantages persist even when classical machines are granted unlimited time or if BPP = BQP, and rely only on the correctness of quantum mechanics. Together, our results establish machine learning on classical data as a broad and natural domain of quantum advantage and a fundamental test of quantum mechanics at the complexity frontier.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07639
When a SCADA alarm is raised in a water distribution network, operators must decide quickly whether it reflects a cyberattack, a physical fault, a normal transient or a faulty sensor. Supervised classifiers need labelled incidents that utilities rarely have, and frontier large language models (LLMs) take tens of seconds per decision. We tested whether Jev, a training-free model that returns class probabilities in about one second, can serve as the first tier of this triage. On a four-class cause-attribution benchmark built on the C-Town network in EPANET, Jev was compared with a hand-written rule tree, a supervised classifier and seven cloud LLMs on identical evidence in four sealed, pre-registered rounds. With only a label-free prior correction, Jev matched the rule tree (macro-F1 0.62-0.64 against 0.56-0.61 in distribution) and exceeded the supervised classifier by 0.36-0.42 on event subtypes absent from its labels, in all four rounds, and it outperformed the classifier whenever fewer than about four labelled events per class were available. Jev also decided 20-40 times faster than frontier LLMs. Accepting only benign Jev verdicts confirmed by the rule tree spared an LLM reviewer 35-38% of windows on fresh sealed sets without loss of macro-F1. Transferred unchanged to two further networks, this gated cascade stayed within the non-inferiority margin of its reviewer on all four sets. A fast, training-free screen can therefore take over about a third of the review load in SCADA anomaly triage while preserving the accuracy of deliberate review.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02048