Daily Papers

Semantic-ID mappings are reusable interfaces between item tokenizers and generative recommenders, yet released mappings rarely state whether they are coherent, what structure they expose, how generated paths resolve, or what must be revalidated after a refresh. SIDScope is a source-traced diagnostic resource for these decisions. It normalizes item-to-code artifacts, verifies provenance and joins, profiles mapping structure, compares paired revisions, and accounts for path-to-item outcomes in generated traces. Across nine source-traced tokenizer exports from seven families on Amazon and Yelp data - eight executable routes plus one auditable snapshot - SIDScope reveals that interface health is multi-signal rather than scalar. Its central finding is mechanism-conditional: prefix alignment strongly tracks held-out candidate exposure when retrieval consumes SID prefixes, then weakens as scoring becomes prefix-independent. Trained trace accounting exposes a second hidden gap: a valid target path can survive without uniquely retrieving the target item by 1.2-3.0 percentage points. A refresh case establishes a third: repairing the mapping does not by itself restore an inherited generator; model reuse requires a separate handoff check. The package provides frozen evidence summaries, conformance reports, trace labels, table builders, and CPU-only verifiers. It supports decisions about artifact readiness, interface risks, and revalidation before model reuse.

As data-science agents shift from co-pilots to auto-pilots, silent misframing becomes a critical failure mode. Agents quietly commit to plausible but unintended task framings, producing clean, executable artifacts that hide their incorrect assessment of the task. Existing benchmarks score whether the pipeline runs, ignoring whether the agent recognized the task was underspecified. We introduce Ambig-DS, two diagnostic suites: one for prediction-target ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Target, 51 tasks built on DSBench, a tabular modeling benchmark) and one for evaluation-objective ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Objective, 61 tasks built on MLE-bench, a Kaggle-style ML competition benchmark), constructed so that scoring uses each source benchmark's original evaluator. For every task we pair the original, fully specified version with an ambiguous variant produced by controlled edits; a human-and-LLM verification pipeline confirms each variant admits multiple plausible interpretations with decision-relevant consequences. The suites are analyzed independently and ambiguity lowers performance in both. Across five agents spanning efficient to frontier-class models, we find in our controlled diagnostic setting: (i) failures are silent commitments: wrong-target submissions on Target, wrong-metric or non-committal baseline submissions on Objective, rather than execution errors; (ii) allowing the agent to ask one clarifying question recovers much of the loss under idealized conditions, suggesting missing framing information drives a substantial part of the observed degradation; but (iii) agents cannot reliably tell when to use it: permissive prompts induce over-asking on clear tasks, while conservative prompts induce silent defaulting on ambiguous ones. Recognizing target and objective underspecification, not pipeline execution, is the bottleneck missing from standard DS-agent evaluations.