Elizaveta Sivak, Emily M. Cantrell, Thomas Emery +109cs.LG
Major life events have proven difficult to predict. Does this reflect limits of theory, data, and algorithms, or the large role of chance? We examine one outcome - having a child within three years - through a near-ideal setting for prediction: a data challenge where 147 researchers predicted births for Dutch residents aged 18-45, using survey data and full-population registers. Methods ranged from logistic regression to a large language model and transformers. Predictions were moderately accurate (best F1: register 0.59, survey 0.76); advanced models did not outperform classical ones; and the larger registers did not beat the survey. Simulating the stochastic biology of conception and pregnancy, we estimated a predictive ceiling (survey F1 ~ 0.86-0.94, register 0.88-0.96). Observed performance falls short of this ceiling, implicating imperfect data, methods, and unmodelled chance, while the ceiling itself shows that chance in reproduction alone sets a non-trivial limit on predicting individual lives.
Comparing stochastically trained models requires estimating both a performance difference and its uncertainty from repeated runs. We study whether training logs from those same runs can make such comparisons more precise. Because training-log covariates are produced during training rather than measured before it, we use arm-specific covariate adjustment: each model is adjusted only with statistics from its own runs, and the raw mean difference remains the reported effect. In a vision study spanning three architectures and three datasets, simple adjustments based on early training logs often reduce uncertainty in model comparisons. The main limitation is covariate selection. Broadly searching the log pool for the most correlated statistic often adds more noise than it removes, even when useful statistics exist in hindsight. Training logs therefore appear useful for more precise model comparisons, but only when the adjustment avoids large selection noise.
Standard model comparison is global, aggregating losses across the covariate space to declare a single winner. This can obscure heterogeneous performance, where different models are preferable in different regions. We introduce conformalized local model comparison, a split-sample framework for constructing calibrated local best-model maps. Given a model comparison score, such as the difference between two squared losses, the method uses three disjoint splits to fit competing models, estimate local centers and scales from out-of-sample scores, and conformally calibrate residual uncertainty. At a target point, the procedure declares a local winner only when a one-sided conformal bound excludes a tie, with the score's sign determining the favored model. We prove finite-sample marginal control for one-sided erroneous declarations on the realized future comparison score, establish pointwise consistency of the localized mean-score estimator away from tie boundaries, show that aggregate comparison can disagree sharply with the prevalence of local superiority, and derive a squared-loss bias--variance decomposition that clarifies how model structure affects local wins. Synthetic and real-data experiments show that the method recovers heterogeneous winner regions, abstains under uncertainty, and yields higher conditional gain than global selection.
Sheng Lun Christine Cao, Destenie Nock, Alex Daviscs.LG
Discrete choice modeling is a common tool used for preference elicitation during policy-making, but this is typically done through parametric models. Machine learning can push the boundaries of discrete choice modeling for policy-based preference elicitation by adopting a data-driven approach or learning individual preferences. However, there is limited knowledge of how well machine learning methods can estimate individual discrete choice rules under individual heterogeneity, especially in the context of challenges often experienced during preference elicitation. This study evaluates four machine learning models (multinomial logistic regression, generalized additive model, twinned neural network, and Gaussian process) with respect to their capacity to learn and predict five choice rules that are important in the behavioral and social sciences (linear strong utility, monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, and multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator). Monte Carlo experiments were performed to assess model performance when increasing a) the number of attributes in the choice alternatives, b) the number of training choice sets, and c) the choice rule's determinism. The simulation results demonstrated that semi-parametric and non-parametric models generally outperform parametric models across all choice rules and experimental contexts. Model performance also generally improves by 6% to 96% and 0% to 55%, respectively, with an increase in training choice sets and choice rule determinism. A case study using real energy policy preference data was also conducted, where TNN performed best with a BIC of 13.351. This work demonstrated the viability and limitations of semi-parametric and non-parametric models in the context of policy-centric discrete choice modeling and showed how the choice task context should drive model selection.
The rapid proliferation of data-intensive applications, cloud infrastructure, and IoT ecosystems has made proactive resource provisioning critical for maintaining optimal network performance. However, network administrators face a constant battle against capacity constraints, where traditional reactive approaches fail to accurately anticipate traffic fluctuations. This inability to foresee demand leads to costly over-provisioning, unexpected downtime, and degraded quality of service directly impacting operational budgets and business continuity. To achieve efficient capacity planning, accurate forecasting of bandwidth utilization is essential. This study addresses the challenge by evaluating a diverse spectrum of models including seasonal decomposition, Prophet, Random Forest, XGBoost, Support Vector Regression, and advanced deep learning architectures like bidirectional and Convolutional LSTMs - using a common interface dataset benchmarked across MAPE, NRMSE, and R-square metrics. Ultimately, this research delivers actionable insights into the trade-offs between model accuracy and computational efficiency, empowering engineers, operators, and business owners to select the optimal forecasting model for their specific infrastructure needs.
Given a task described by a few examples, how should a model be specialized to it? Four mechanisms are available -- zero-shot, in-context attention, test-time gradient adaptation, and emitting specialist weights from a hypernetwork -- yet the operating regime of the last is rarely mapped. We run the identical four-way comparison across six tasks spanning regression, generation, language modeling, reinforcement learning, and clinical and genomic classification, holding the specialist, the context, and (where we can) the training budget fixed. The clearest wins for emission are about cost at matched quality: it ties the state-of-the-art amortized tabular model (TabPFN) on clinical few-shot classification while emitting a reusable specialist instead of re-attending the support set per query, and reaches noise-floor shape generation with a $132$-float per-instance program. On few-shot sinusoid regression it is $2$--$3$ orders of magnitude below MAML at zero test-time gradient steps -- a margin that narrows to $\sim$$30\times$ but persists once training budgets are equalized. Emission cannot match in-context attention on high-dimensional sequence modeling: under matched-budget pre-training a one-pass adapter recovers only a minority of the in-context gain ($14.0\pm0.9\%$ at $5$M, $11.2\pm0.5\%$ at $15$M), and a LoRA-rank sweep shows this shortfall is a partial capacity limit -- capture climbs from $5\%$ to $21\%$ as rank grows but plateaus far below full recovery. Mechanism ablations confirm the emitted specialist is genuinely task-conditioned, not a memorized prior; and, more speculatively, emitted specialists compose in weight space -- interpolating two of them tracks the corresponding blend of their functions. We close with a falsifiable thesis, operationalized through a per-task resolution measure, bounding when each conditioning mechanism should be preferred.
Muhammed Walid, Ahmed El-Naeimy, Hosam Moubarak +1cs.AI
This study concentrates on predicting stock prices in the Egyptian market, focusing on the EGX30, an influential financial hub in the Middle East. While most research focuses on global stocks, there's a growing need to understand stock trends in developing countries like Egypt. The study compares different machine learning models for forecasting EGX30 trends, covering short and long-term predictions. Using historical EGX30 data, including metrics like root mean squared error, Mean Absolute Percentage Error, and coefficient of determination, models like K-Nearest Neighbours, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, long short-term memory networks, and gated recurrent unit networks were evaluated. The goal is to determine the most effective models for EGX30 prediction, considering Egypt's unique market dynamics. Insights from this study aid investors in making informed decisions. Results show that the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) outperformed the other models in the one-week, one-month, and two-months while the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model outperformed others in the one-day predictions, highlighting their usefulness in predictive analysis for financial markets. The study also showed the importance of using the ensemble techniques, especially in the long-term predictions which proved better results reaching 5 times the GRU in the two-month predictions. Additionally, the study notes the surprisingly good performance of K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN) on long-term predictions, suggesting its enduring relevance and potential for future applications in the fintech domains.
Independently trained neural networks have no shared neuron-index reference frame, so comparing them requires accounting for coordinate freedom. Neural Collapse sharpens this problem: networks converge toward a shared, low-dimensional geometry, raising the question of whether trajectory-specific functional variation remains distinguishable after convergence. We distinguish three claims - detectability, transplantability, and causal persistence - and address the first. Using five independently trained networks reconstructing Neural Collapse on MNIST, we apply a verified affine-correct alignment mapping donor heads into recipient coordinates. Donor-specific functional fingerprints remain distinguishable after recipient-level baseline correction: all 20 ordered donor-recipient pairs are correctly identified, with an exact permutation p=0.0083, robust to a leakage audit. These findings establish detectability under the test used here, but not transplantability or causal persistence. The study shows how alignment, ambiguity diagnostics, and leakage control combine to test cross-network variation in a controlled setting; whether this generalizes beyond it is open.
Deploying a time series foundation model requires GPU infrastructure, engineering overhead, and carries no guarantee of improvement over XGBoost. We provide the first systematic break-even analysis answering when this investment pays off. Across 30 benchmark datasets, we compare zero-shot and LoRA fine-tuned foundation models (Chronos, Moirai, Lag-Llama) against classical baselines (Naive, ETS, ARIMA, XGBoost) at six training set sizes from 2% to 100% of available data. Foundation models outperform classical methods at every evaluated training fraction on 15 of 30 datasets -- GPU deployment is unconditionally justified on these regardless of data volume. On 6 datasets, classical methods surpass zero-shot foundation models with as little as 2% of training data (21-2,768 samples); on the remaining 9, break-even ranges from 24 to 8,361 samples. One robust deployment rule requires no model training: if n_train < 700 and seasonality is non-negligible, use FM zero-shot and skip fine-tuning -- this resolves 10 of 30 deployment decisions immediately. Contrary to common practice, LoRA fine-tuning can actively degrade performance on short series. We operationalise these findings as a two-step decision framework -- compute dataset length and seasonality strength, run a brief 5-10% pilot only if needed -- enabling practitioners to make the FM-versus-classical decision before committing to full infrastructure. Four dataset features motivate mechanistic hypotheses for the remaining cases, though reliable automated prediction at this benchmark scale remains an open problem. Code, benchmark, and decision tools are available at https://github.com/nicolaisi/fm-breakeven.
In a deep forecasting pipeline for fat-tailed financial returns at short horizons, which matters more - the backbone architecture or the output head? We compare four modern backbones (TimesNet, DLinear, N-BEATS, iTransformer) under three output heads: a point head, a single-Gaussian density head, and a Gaussian mixture density head with K=4 components. On S and P 500 monthly log-returns (1871-2023) under anchored walk-forward validation, the three heads form a strict gradient: switching from point to Gaussian improves CRPS by about 1.3 percent; switching from Gaussian to mixture adds a further about 2.4 percent. Switching between backbones, in contrast, changes CRPS by less than 1.5 percent on the point-head row and on the backbone-mean axis; density-head backbone spread is larger (up to 5.1 percent on the h=1 Gaussian row, driven by N-BEATS) but the head gradient (3.7 percentage points) still dominates. The Model Confidence Set on squared errors does not exclude any of the 12 variants at the 5 percent level: the head separates them only on distributional metrics (CRPS, pinball, coverage), not on squared error. The mixture head incremental value over a single Gaussian is largest in the highest-volatility regimes (13.9 percent in 1970s stagflation at h=12), confirming the mixture captures tail risk beyond what a unimodal Gaussian can express. The picture is horizon-dependent: the head dominates at short horizons, but at long horizons (h >= 6) the backbone re-takes the lead - an h-split we document against classical baselines (section 5.1). We conclude that on fat-tailed returns at short horizons, the head dominates the backbone, and the mixture distribution adds genuine value over a single Gaussian during crisis periods when risk-management decisions actually matter.
Louis Agyekum, Edmund Fosu Agyemang, Obu-Amoah Ampomah +6cs.LG stat.AP
This study examines whether machine learning (ML) models can outperform the naive random walk benchmark in forecasting the monthly USD/CAD exchange rate. Using daily data from the Bank of Canada spanning January 2017 to May 2026, resampled into 113 monthly observations, five ML models are evaluated: linear regression, random forest, gradient boosting, XGBoost, and AdaBoost. These models are benchmarked against the naive random walk model and exponential smoothing with Holt-Winters seasonality (ETS). All models are evaluated using an expanding-window framework to maintain strict out-of-sample integrity, and forecast-accuracy differences are assessed using the Diebold-Mariano (DM) test. Structural break detection identifies four significant breakpoints in the series, corresponding to the escalation of the US-China trade war in 2018, the COVID-19 economic recovery in 2020, the peak of the Bank of Canada rate-hiking cycle in 2022, and the start of the Bank of Canada rate-cutting cycle in 2024. SHAP, or Shapley Additive Explanations, analysis is applied to interpret the drivers of the best-performing ML model. The results show that the naive random walk model remains a formidable benchmark. Linear regression is the only model that statistically outperforms the naive random walk model, with a DM statistic of 3.0585 and a p value of 0.0071, whereas the ML ensemble models show only marginal differences. Random Forest with an expanding-window framework achieves the lowest MAPE of 1.17 percent among all models except the random walk. SHAP analysis confirms that short-term lags, particularly lag1 and lag2, and recent rolling means dominate predictions, consistent with the near-random-walk behavior of exchange rates.