We trained each agent i with online Q-learning [33] on the Qi(ai,s) table using Boltzmann exploration [18]. The Boltzmann temperature is fixed to 1 and we set the learning rate to 0.05 and the discount factor to0.99. Atinitialisation,thetarget'sand ball'svertical position is fixed, their horizontal positions are random. In all of our experiments, we use the Adam optimizer [19] to perform parameter updates. We use a buffer-size of106 entriesandabatch-sizeof1024.

--Reliable multi-source fusion is crucial for robust perception in autonomous systems. However, evaluating fusion performance independently of detection errors remains challenging. This work introduces a systematic evaluation framework that injects controlled noise into ground-truth bounding boxes to isolate the fusion process. We then propose Unified Kalman Fusion (UniKF), a late-fusion algorithm based on Kalman filtering to merge Bird's Eye View (BEV) detections while handling synchronization issues. Experiments show that UniKF outperforms baseline methods across various noise levels, achieving up to 3 lower object's positioning and orientation errors and 2 lower dimension estimation errors, while maintaining near-perfect precision and recall between 99. 5% and 100%. Accurate perception is fundamental for autonomous driving, especially in complex urban settings where sensor occlusions, limited range, and adverse weather degrade detection quality [1]. Collaborative perception, enabled by onboard sensors' communication and V ehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communication, enhances perception by sharing sensor data across multiple sensors or agents [2], [3]. Early fusion methods require high bandwidth and strict time synchronization. Deep fusion demands access to proprietary models, which is impractical due to privacy and intellectual property restrictions. Late fusion, which operates at the object detection level, offers a scalable, bandwidth-efficient, and detector-model-agnostic alternative.

The recent development of deep learning (DL) methods for computer vision has been driven by the creation of open benchmark datasets on which new algorithms can be tested and compared with reproducible results. Although DL methods have many applications in geophysics, few real seismic datasets are available for benchmarking DL models, especially for denoising real data, which is one of the main problems in seismic data processing scenarios in the oil and gas industry. This article presents a benchmark dataset composed of synthetic seismic data corrupted with noise extracted from a filtering process implemented on real data. In this work, a comparison between two well-known DL-based denoising models is conducted on this dataset, which is proposed as a benchmark for accelerating the development of new solutions for seismic data denoising. This work also introduces a new evaluation metric that can capture small variations in model results. The results show that DL models are effective at denoising seismic data, but some issues remain to be solved.

Quantization lowers memory usage, computational requirements, and latency by utilizing fewer bits to represent model weights and activations. In this work, we investigate the generalization properties of quantized neural networks, a characteristic that has received little attention despite its implications on model performance. In particular, first, we develop a theoretical model for quantization in neural networks and demonstrate how quantization functions as a form of regularization. Second, motivated by recent work connecting the sharpness of the loss landscape and generalization, we derive an approximate bound for the generalization of quantized models conditioned on the amount of quantization noise. We then validate our hypothesis by experimenting with over 2000 models trained on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet datasets on convolutional and transformer-based models.

We evaluate the folk wisdom that algorithms trained on data produced by biased human decision-makers necessarily reflect this bias. We consider a setting where training labels are only generated if a biased decision-maker takes a particular action, and so bias arises due to selection into the training data. In our baseline model, the more biased the decision-maker is toward a group, the more the algorithm favors that group. We refer to this phenomenon as "algorithmic affirmative action." We then clarify the conditions that give rise to algorithmic affirmative action. Whether a prediction algorithm reverses or inherits bias depends critically on how the decision-maker affects the training data as well as the label used in training. We illustrate our main theoretical results in a simulation study applied to the New York City Stop, Question and Frisk dataset.