Qiong Zhang

Yan Shuo Tan, Kenyon Ng, Ruizhe Deng et al.

Thompson sampling is a widely used strategy for contextual bandits: at each round, it samples a reward function from a Bayesian posterior and acts greedily under that sample. Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs), such as TabPFN v2+ and TabICL v2, are attractive candidates for this purpose because they approximate Bayesian posterior predictive distributions in a single forward pass. However, PFNs predict noisy future rewards, while Thompson sampling requires uncertainty over the latent mean reward function. We propose PFN-TS, a Thompson sampling algorithm that converts PFN posterior predictives into mean-reward samples using a subsampled predictive central limit theorem. The method estimates posterior variance from a geometric grid of $O(\log n)$ dataset prefixes rather than the full $O(n)$ predictive sequence used in previous predictive-sequence approaches, and reuses TabICL's cached representations across rounds. We prove consistency of the subsampled variance estimator and give a Bayesian regret bound that decomposes PFN-TS regret into exact posterior-sampling regret under the PFN prior plus approximation terms. Empirically, PFN-TS achieves the best average rank across nonlinear synthetic and OpenML classification-to-bandit benchmarks, remains competitive on linear and BART-generated rewards, and attains the highest estimated policy value in an offline mobile-health evaluation. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PFN_TS-36ED/.

Ruinan Jin, Beidi Zhao, Myeongkyun Kang et al.

Self-verification, re-invoking the same vision language model (VLM) in a fresh context to check its own generated answer, is increasingly used as a default safety layer for medical visual question answering (VQA). We argue that this practice is fundamentally unreliable. We introduce [METHOD NAME], a diagnostic framework for mapping the reliability boundary of medical VLM self-verification by decomposing verifier behavior into discrimination capability and agreement bias. Because the verifier and answer generator are capacity-coupled, the verifier can overly agree with the generator, creating a verification mirage: a regime with both high verifier error and high agreement bias, driven by false acceptance of incorrect answers. Evaluating six open-weight VLMs across five medical VQA datasets and seven medical tasks, we find that this boundary is strongly task-conditioned. Knowledge-intensive clinical tasks fall deepest into the mirage, simpler tasks are more resistant, and perceptual tasks lie in between. Verification also fails to provide an independent safety signal: logistic mixed-effects analysis shows that verifier error and agreement bias become more likely when the generator is wrong, while saliency analyses show that verifiers under-attend to image evidence relative to generators, a phenomenon we call the lazy verifier. Cross-verification reduces but does not eliminate the mirage. Moreover, when verification is reused in multi-turn actor-verifier loops, most initially wrong answers become locked in by false verification. Since our experiments use clean benchmarks, the observed reliability boundary likely underestimates failures in real clinical deployment.