Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Zachary Plotkin

Publications and source records attributed to Zachary Plotkin.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

LineupRL: Verifiable Reinforcement Learning for Time Series Captioning via Caption-to-Series Identification

Time series captioning is a fundamental step in time series understanding and can also serve as the bridge between signal and natural language. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) relies on a larger model's captions and cannot exceed their quality. Reinforcement learning (RL) can, but its rewards were designed for other modalities and other tasks, and they transfer poorly to open-ended generation in the time series domain. We address this by proposing LineupRL, a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) pipeline whose reward is caption-to-series identification. The reward model is a frozen large language model (LLM) verifier that reads the generated caption and the candidate time series as raw values, never the chart, and must pick the described time series from multiple distractors. Matching is a far lighter demand on the verifier than writing questions or judging a caption, so an off-the-shelf LLM can supply the reward. Across two captioning benchmarks, and on forecasting and reconstruction where the predictor sees only the caption, LineupRL outperforms SFT and RL baselines on every metric. The 3B vision language model (VLM) trained by LineupRL also outperforms, at 1/24 of the parameters, the 72B VLM whose captions the SFT baseline is distilled from. Our case study shows that LineupRL resists reward hacking, and that the captioner it trains both traces the trend and names the values at key points.

cs.AI↗

On the Divergence of Accuracy and Mechanism Consistency in Time Series World Models

A time series world model (TSWM) predicts a controlled system's state from its observed history and planned actions and exogenous inputs. Current approaches build forecasters with actions as covariates, trained and evaluated on prediction error under the executed plan. Yet world models compare unexecuted plans, but their responses to changed plans remain untested. We ask which design choices matter and whether accurate forecasters respond to changed plans as real systems do. We address both with a formalization and benchmark. The formalization separates state, actions and exogenous inputs, distinguishes continuous, mode and event actions, and introduces mechanism consistency, a metric built on declared action-state relations with known directions, such as a vasopressor raising blood pressure: it checks whether shifting an action moves the forecast in the declared direction. The benchmark consolidates eight public datasets with real actions from engineered infrastructure and clinical care, varying prediction space, plan fusion and plan encoding across seven backbones and five seeds. First, a frozen latent prediction space lowers MAE by 9.9% over observation space and gated output fusion lowers it by 12.7% over input concatenation on average, with both improving all eight datasets; temporal plan encoding changes average MAE by at most 2.2%. Second, prediction error and mechanism consistency diverge: the lowest-error configuration is at or below chance in consistency on four of five datasets with declared mechanisms, and no design choice avoids this. Finally, directional supervision, a loss penalizing the wrong-signed part of the response to a shifted action, significantly raises consistency on penalized mechanisms with no change in MAE. Together they give TSWMs a recipe: a frozen latent space and output-side fusion for accuracy, and a training objective for mechanism consistency.

cs.AI↗