Disentangling Language Roles in Multilingual LLM Task Execution

Multilingual LLMs are increasingly used when instruction, source content, and required response languages do not coincide. Existing benchmarks have expanded multilingual instruction-following evaluation, but they rarely isolate these three roles within a fully crossed design. We introduce MTM-Bench, a controlled benchmark for language-conditioned task execution in which each instance is defined by a triplet \((L_{\text{instr}}, L_{\text{content}}, L_{\text{resp}})\). Across English, Spanish, and Chinese, MTM-Bench enumerates all 27 triplets and contains 2{,}430 instances per model across semantic reversal, final-state extraction, and language purity with update realization. We evaluate 20 frontier and open-weight LLMs using decomposed metrics for semantic correctness, target-language adherence, constraint satisfaction, contamination ratio, and joint success, with scoring validated by a targeted human audit. The fully crossed design reveals that degradation is organized by the role a language occupies in the task structure, not merely by mismatch count. The response-language role is the dominant axis of variation, and a single response-slot mismatch accounts for most degradation. The response-only and full-mismatch comparison suggests that mismatch count is not a monotonic predictor of difficulty, with model-level ordering varying across systems. Task families fail through distinct channels, showing that semantic correctness alone does not capture reliable multilingual task execution.

Relative Repairability: A Calibration-Based Diagnostic for High-Sparsity Post-Pruning Allocation

At very high sparsity, neural network pruning does more than decide which weights remain. It also determines where pruning induced damage is placed across the network, and whether that damage can be recovered by a fixed lightweight repair procedure. We study this problem through the lens of repair conditioned sparsity allocation. We introduce Relative Repairability (RR), a calibration based diagnostic that compares the raw activation distortion caused by layerwise pruning with the residual distortion left after channelwise variance matching repair. RR estimates the fraction of local damage that remains after repair, using only unlabeled calibration data. Across ResNet18, ResNet34, and VGG16 BN on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100, we find that RR is not a universally dominant allocation rule. Instead, it is most useful near an architecture dependent recoverability transition, where standard structural or magnitude based allocation priors begin to lose reliability but post repair recovery has not yet fully collapsed. On CIFAR100 ResNet18, a fine grained sweep shows that RR improves over ERK across the central transition band and surpasses LAMP near the upper part of this band. A projection forced ablation further shows that capped ERK can over protect projection layers, shifting excessive sparsity onto regular convolutions and reducing post repair recovery. These results suggest that high sparsity pruning should allocate not only retained weights, but also repairable damage.

How Sparsity Allocation Shapes Label-Free Post-Pruning Recoverability

Unstructured magnitude pruning at high sparsity can reduce neural network accuracy to near-random performance, while labeled retraining may be unavailable in practical deployment settings. Label-free post-pruning repair methods can partially recover collapsed sparse models, but their effectiveness depends on the sparse model left by the upstream pruning allocation. This paper studies how sparsity allocation shapes post-repair recoverability under a fixed activation-statistic repair backend. We compare ERK and LAMP allocations under the same label-free repair protocol across CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Imagenette with ResNet-18, ResNet-34, and ResNet-50 at sparsities from 90% to 95.5%. The results show that allocation choice can substantially change post-repair accuracy at the same global sparsity, and that the preferred allocation varies with architecture, dataset difficulty, and sparsity level. We identify a repair-sensitive transition regime in which BatchNorm recalibration begins to fail, while activation-statistic repair still recovers nontrivial accuracy. Additional validation on ImageNet-100 and DenseNet-121 shows that the location and width of this recoverable regime depend on data scale and connectivity structure. These findings suggest that pruning allocation and post-pruning repair should be studied jointly, since the allocation determines how much activation signal remains available for label-free recovery.

Adaptive Signal Resuscitation: Channel-wise Post-Pruning Repair for Sparse Vision Networks

One-shot magnitude pruning can cause severe accuracy collapse in the high-sparsity regime, even when the pruning mask preserves the largest weights. We argue that this failure reflects a granularity mismatch in post-pruning repair. Under global magnitude pruning, nearly collapsed channels can coexist with channels that retain informative activation variance within the same layer. Existing layer-wise activation repair methods apply a single correction to the whole layer, and can therefore over-amplify damaged channels while trying to restore the layer-level signal. We propose Adaptive Signal Resuscitation (ASR), a training-free channel-wise repair method that matches the granularity of repair to the granularity of damage. ASR estimates a variance-matching correction for each output channel and stabilizes it with a data-driven shrinkage rule, suppressing unreliable corrections for channels with weak post-pruning signal while preserving corrections for healthier channels. Applied before BatchNorm recalibration, ASR requires only forward passes on a small calibration set and no retraining. Across three datasets, four convolutional architectures, and both unstructured and structured sparsity settings, ASR generally improves over layer-wise repair, with the clearest gains in high-sparsity regimes. On ResNet-50 at 90% sparsity, ASR recovers 55.6% top-1 accuracy on CIFAR-10, compared with 41.0% for layer-wise repair and 28.0% for BatchNorm-only recalibration. Ablations show that naive channel-wise variance matching is insufficient, and that shrinkage stabilizes post-pruning repair.

Unstable Rankings in Bayesian Deep Learning Evaluation

Standard evaluations of Bayesian deep learning methods assume that metric estimates are reliable, but we show this assumption fails under data scarcity. Method rankings are not only unreliable at small $n$, but also dataset-dependent in ways that point estimates cannot reveal: the same method comparison yields $P(\mathrm{MCD} \prec \mathrm{Ensemble}) = 1.000$ at $n = 50$ on one dataset and remains below $0.95$ even at $n = 500$ on another. Across the datasets we consider, no universal sample size threshold exists, which is precisely why dataset-specific posterior inference is necessary. To address this, we use a Bayesian hierarchical model with method-specific variances to treat evaluation metrics as random variables across data realizations, and we use a predictive Minimum Detectable Difference curve to assess whether an observed gap would be detectable at a given training size. Across six Bayesian deep learning methods and five regression datasets, our results show that uncertainty-aware evaluation is necessary in low-data settings, because current evidence for method superiority and predictive detectability at the same training size can diverge substantially. Our framework provides practitioners with principled tools to determine whether their evaluation data is sufficient before drawing conclusions about method superiority.

A Tale of Two Variances: When Single-Seed Benchmarks Fail in Bayesian Deep Learning

In limited-data settings, a single endpoint mean of an evaluation metric such as the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) is itself a random variable, yet it is routinely reported as if it were a stable property of the method. We study when this practice fails. Using 50 independent repetitions across six regression datasets, we show that CRPS variance trajectories differ substantially across methods and are not always well described by a smooth power-law decay. Methods with a learned heteroscedastic variance head, namely MAP and Deep Ensembles, can develop pronounced, reproducible variance peaks at intermediate training sizes on real datasets, whereas MC Dropout and Bayes by Backprop typically show smooth variance contraction. These peaks have direct practical consequences: at the variance peak on Seoul Bike, the relative RMSE of a single-seed MAP estimate reaches 93.6\%, and the probability of falling within \(\pm 10\%\) of the repeated-run mean drops to 5.9\%. We show that local CRPS variance provides a direct signal of single-seed estimation error, with Spearman correlations above 0.96 on every real dataset. Power-law fit quality and monotonicity together provide compact method-level summaries of trajectory regularity. Finally, replacing the standard heteroscedastic objective with \(β\)-NLL substantially reduces the irregular behavior, consistent with the view that the heteroscedastic training objective contributes to the instability. Practitioners should report trajectory summaries alongside endpoint means and concentrate repeated evaluation in high-variance regions.

Reinforcement Learning for Option Hedging: Static Implied-Volatility Fit versus Shortfall-Aware Performance

We extend the Q-learner in Black-Scholes (QLBS) framework by incorporating risk aversion and trading costs, and propose a novel Replication Learning of Option Pricing (RLOP) approach. Both methods are fully compatible with standard reinforcement learning algorithms and operate under market frictions. Using SPY and XOP option data, we evaluate performance along static and dynamic dimensions. Adaptive-QLBS achieves higher static pricing accuracy in implied volatility space, while RLOP delivers superior dynamic hedging performance by reducing shortfall probability. These results highlight the importance of evaluating option pricing models beyond static fit, emphasizing realized hedging outcomes.