Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.05670

When Does Consensus Mean Correctness? Measuring the Agreement-Accuracy Coupling with Semantics-Preserving Re-Rendering

Rasul Khanbayov·Hasan Kurban
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A model's agreement across perturbed inputs is used both as a label-free reliability signal and as a self-training target, on the premise that agreement tracks correctness. That coupling is rarely measured directly: natural-image perturbations preserve meaning only by assumption, and no exact answer key localizes errors. Scientific figures remove both obstacles, a figure is drawn from data by a program, so redrawing it yields images that are semantically equivalent by construction and share a programmatically exact answer. We build RENDEQ, a generator of such render-equivalence sets, and measure the coupling on three open-weight VLMs, checking every finding across three independent instantiations. Re-rendering beats resampling on both accuracy and reliability. Agreement beats an evidence-carrying baseline, mean token log-probability, on two of three models and ties on the third, reversing an intermediate, buggy replication traced to a rendering-pipeline failure. The dispersion behind this is concentrated in one style factor, the plotting library, more than double the next-largest factor and an order of magnitude above the noise floor. Fine-tuning on the model's own cross-render consensus inverts: accuracy falls in every one of five replication runs, the opposite sign to published results on natural images. Agreement certifies correctness only above a threshold set by how diffuse a model's errors are, and an objective that rewards agreement destroys exactly that diffuseness.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rasul Khanbayov, Hasan Kurban. 2026-08-06. When Does Consensus Mean Correctness? Measuring the Agreement-Accuracy Coupling with Semantics-Preserving Re-Rendering. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05670

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Label Propagation for Physics-Informed Neural Networks and Physics-Informed Gaussian Processes

We present a series of empirical results of the application of semi-supervised label propagation techniques in training physics-informed machine learning methods. This includes self-training of physics-informed neural networks and physics-informed Gaussian processes in isolation, and the integration of the two via co-training, therefore establishing a hybrid between these two main classes of physics-informed machine learning. We demonstrate via extensive numerical experiments how these methods can ameliorate the issue of propagating information from boundaries into the physical domain, including information from initial conditions in the case of solving stiff time-dependent partial differential equations, which is known to be a common failure mode of physics-informed machine learning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Multi-Armed Bernoulli Bandits via Minimax Single-Arm Stopping

We develop an index policy for finite-horizon Bernoulli multi-armed bandits from minimax solutions to single-arm bandit (SAB) problems. Each SAB problem involves choosing between an unknown Bernoulli arm and a known reward. We show that minimizing worst-case regret of SAB problems over all non-anticipative policies admits an exact semi-infinite linear programming formulation. The resulting stopping policies offer a natural way to compare arms: the higher the known reward against which a policy continues sampling, the more promising the unknown arm. We turn this intuition into indices based on cumulative continuation probabilities, with a monotone adjustment and a reward-shortfall cap. By relating index errors to the regret of single-arm stopping policies, we establish a distribution-free regret bound of $4.45\sqrt{KT}+10.75K$ for $K$ arms and horizon $T$. This bound matches the minimax-optimal regret order established in the literature. The guarantee extends to rewards supported on $[0,1]$ through Bernoulli randomization. We also provide a finite-grid implementation with quantified approximation loss. In numerical experiments, the SAB-based index policy achieves lower worst-case regret than every tested benchmark policy across all evaluated numbers of arms and horizons, while closely matching the grid-based MAB minimax policy in the two-arm setting.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Autonomous Model Lifecycle Management for Digital Twin-Based Manufacturing Control

Manufacturing AI systems must autonomously adapt to continuous distributional shift from raw-material variability, ambient changes, and equipment aging, under strict safeguard and operator-trust requirements where model failures risk physical damage. This paper presents a closed-loop Cyber-Physical System (CPS) for autonomous model lifecycle management in automotive manufacturing, deployed since 2023. The system manages product-specialized model pairs: a sequence-to-sequence physics model (LPP) serving as a digital twin, and a deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) control policy (LCP) trained against it. Per retraining cycle, multiple model variants spanning architecture families and RL algorithms compete; only the best-scoring candidate advances. A Conductor orchestrator autonomously manages plant-wide model inventories with dependency-aware retraining and Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) fallback. Reflecting the principle of Human-Centric Intelligence, the LCP composite score embeds an operator-trust gate penalizing policies deviating from established practice; without it, 23% of policies are rejected by operators despite passing accuracy thresholds. Across multiple facilities, LCP-controlled processes achieve process stability improvements of 28-45% over uncontrolled baselines with zero safety incidents.

cs.LG↗