When Does Exercise-Specific Joint Selection Help? An Audit of Evaluation and Control Design

Haotian Chen; Jingkun Yu; Yuning Zhang; Bowen Ye

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.01188

When Does Exercise-Specific Joint Selection Help? An Audit of Evaluation and Control Design

Haotian Chen·Jingkun Yu·Yuning Zhang·Bowen Ye

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Exercise-specific joint selection can improve skeleton-based correctness classification, but what does that gain establish? We audit 1,057 repetitions from ten REHAB24-6 subjects, separating evaluation aggregation, subset structure, and temporal representation. The manual-subset kNN gain changes from 0.055 for pooled out-of-fold AUROC to 0.020 for equal-weight within-person AUROC; both paired intervals include zero. Among 1,000 dimension-matched random maps, 14 match or exceed the manual pooled result, versus 145 when bilateral structure and trunk inclusion are also matched. RBF-SVM retains a positive within-person gain, whereas logistic regression and a random-convolution comparator have negative point gains under that estimand. Sequence-order and paired-seed controls further qualify the interpretation. This exploratory audit shows why joint-selection claims require explicit estimands and structurally appropriate controls; it does not establish a new algorithm or clinical benefit.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Haotian Chen, Jingkun Yu, Yuning Zhang, Bowen Ye. 2026-10-01. When Does Exercise-Specific Joint Selection Help? An Audit of Evaluation and Control Design. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01188

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Recent advances in multi-agent systems highlight the potential of specialized small agents that collaborate via division of labor. Existing tool-integrated reasoning systems, however, often follow a single-agent paradigm in which one large model interleaves long-horizon reasoning with precise tool operations, leading to cognitive-load interference and unstable coordination. We present MSARL, a Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from tool use. In MSARL, a Reasoning Agent decomposes problems and plans tool invocations, while multiple Tool Agents specialize in specific external tools, each trained via a combination of imitation learning and reinforcement learning with role-specific rewards. On mathematical problem solving with code execution, MSARL significantly improves reasoning stability and final-answer accuracy over single-agent baselines. Moreover, the architecture generalizes to diverse tool-use tasks, demonstrating that cognitive-role decoupling with small agents is a scalable blueprint for multi-agent AI design.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios

Recent advances in LLM-based agents highlight the importance of their reasoning frameworks, which guide the problem-solving process in diverse ways. This survey introduces a unified formal language to systematically categorize these frameworks at three compositional levels: single-agent, tool-based, and multi-agent methods. Following our taxonomy, we review key application scenarios across scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, society, economics, and general-purpose tasks. It also compares the distinct features and evaluation strategies of each category. Through our taxonomy and comparisons, our survey explores the designs and strengths of LLM-based agentic frameworks in different scenarios, reviewing the fast-paced development of complex agentic systems in the real world.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Moloch's Bargain: Emergent Misalignment When LLMs Compete for Audiences

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

cs.AI↗