This file is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the pseudo-code of UOT A approach.

Our work reveals a structured shortcoming of the existing mainstream self-supervised learning methods.

Causal inference is no exception.

Many interpretation methods for neural models in natural language processing investigate how information is encoded inside hidden representations.

Pre-trained Time Series Foundational Models (TSFMs) represent a significant advance, capable of forecasting diverse time series with complex characteristics, including varied seasonalities, trends, and long-range dependencies. Despite their primary goal of universal time series forecasting, their efficacy is far from uniform; divergent training protocols and data sources cause individual TSFMs to exhibit highly variable performance across different forecasting tasks, domains, and horizons. Leveraging this complementary expertise by arbitrating existing TSFM outputs presents a compelling strategy, yet this remains a largely unexplored area of research. In this paper, we conduct a thorough examination of how different TSFMs exhibit specialized performance profiles across various forecasting settings, and how we can effectively leverage this behavior in arbitration between different time series models. We specifically analyze how factors such as model selection and forecast horizon distribution can influence the efficacy of arbitration strategies. Based on this analysis, we propose Synapse, a novel arbitration framework for TSFMs. Synapse is designed to dynamically leverage a pool of TSFMs, assign and adjust predictive weights based on their relative, context-dependent performance, and construct a robust forecast distribution by adaptively sampling from the output quantiles of constituent models. Experimental results demonstrate that Synapse consistently outperforms other popular ensembling techniques as well as individual TSFMs, demonstrating Synapse's efficacy in time series forecasting.

Systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing scientific evidence but remain labor-intensive, especially when extracting detailed methodological information. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating methodological assessments, promising to transform evidence synthesis. Here, using causal mediation analysis as a representative methodological domain, we benchmarked state-of-the-art LLMs against expert human reviewers across 180 full-text scientific articles. Model performance closely correlated with human judgments (accuracy correlation 0.71; F1 correlation 0.97), achieving near-human accuracy on straightforward, explicitly stated methodological criteria. However, accuracy sharply declined on complex, inference-intensive assessments, lagging expert reviewers by up to 15%. Errors commonly resulted from superficial linguistic cues -- for instance, models frequently misinterpreted keywords like "longitudinal" or "sensitivity" as automatic evidence of rigorous methodological approache, leading to systematic misclassifications. Longer documents yielded lower model accuracy, whereas publication year showed no significant effect. Our findings highlight an important pattern for practitioners using LLMs for methods review and synthesis from full texts: current LLMs excel at identifying explicit methodological features but require human oversight for nuanced interpretations. Integrating automated information extraction with targeted expert review thus provides a promising approach to enhance efficiency and methodological rigor in evidence synthesis across diverse scientific fields.

We present SLEAN (Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network), a deterministic framework for coordinating multiple LLM providers through text-based prompt orchestration. Unlike complex multi-agent systems requiring specialized infrastructure, SLEAN operates as a simple prompt bridge between LLMs using .txt templates, requiring no deep technical knowledge for deployment. The three-phase protocol formed by independent analysis, cross-critique, and arbitration, filters harmful AI-generated code suggestions before production deployment, addressing how AI-assisted debugging increasingly produces modifications that introduce unnecessary complexity, break existing functionality, or address problems. Evaluating 15 software bugs, we analyzed 69 AI-generated fix propositions. SLEAN's filtering accepted 22 fixes (31.9%, 95% CI 20.9-42.9%) while rejecting 47 that would have been harmful if applied verbatim. The arbitration process reduced code change surface by 83-90% relative to raw AI outputs, enforcing minimal causal edits over scope-expanding modifications. Minimal Type 2 inputs proved more efficient than detailed Type 1 inputs, requiring 2.85 versus 3.56 propositions per accepted fix (35.1% versus 28.1% acceptance, about a 20% efficiency gain). Agreement between AI systems showed weak correlation with fix quality: high convergence (at least 80%) occurred in 4 of 15 cases and improved acceptance by only 2.4% points; arbitration appeared only at exactly 10% convergence in 2 of 15 cases, although low convergence alone did not necessitate arbitration. The file-driven, provider-agnostic architecture enables deployment without specialized coding expertise, making it applicable to security auditing, code review, document verification, and other domains requiring reliable multi-provider synthesis with end-to-end auditability.

High-dimensional mediation analysis is often associated with a multiple testing problem for detecting significant mediators. Assessing the uncertainty of this detecting process via false discovery rate (FDR) has garnered great interest. To control the FDR in multiple testing, two essential steps are involved: ranking and selection. Existing approaches either construct p-values without calibration or disregard the joint information across tests, leading to conservation in FDR control or non-optimal ranking rules for multiple hypotheses. In this paper, we develop an adaptive mediation detection procedure (referred to as "AMDP") to identify relevant mediators while asymptotically controlling the FDR in high-dimensional mediation analysis. AMDP produces the optimal rule for ranking hypotheses and proposes a data-driven strategy to determine the threshold for mediator selection. This novel method captures information from the proportions of composite null hypotheses and the distribution of p-values, which turns the high dimensionality into an advantage instead of a limitation. The numerical studies on synthetic and real data sets illustrate the performances of AMDP compared with existing approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.

--In conflict, people use emotional expressions to shape their counterparts' thoughts, feelings, and actions. This paper explores whether automatic text emotion recognition offers insight into this influence in the context of dispute resolution. Prior work has shown the promise of such methods in negotiations; however, disputes evoke stronger emotions and different social processes. We use a large corpus of buyer-seller dispute dialogues to investigate how emotional expressions shape subjective and objective outcomes. We further demonstrate that large-language models yield considerably greater explanatory power than previous methods for emotion intensity annotation and better match the decisions of human annotators. Findings support existing theoretical models for how emotional expressions contribute to conflict escalation and resolution and suggest that agent-based systems could be useful in managing disputes by recognizing and potentially mitigating emotional escalation. Emotional expressions serve essential social functions in human relationships. They convey one's beliefs, desires, and intentions -- shaping the beliefs, desires, and intentions of interaction partners [1], [2]. People high in emotional intelligence achieve more success in navigating emotional relationships [3], and there exists growing interest in creating AI agents that understand and enact these social functions [4], [5]. Prior work suggests that emotionally-aware agents are suitable for a growing list of applications, including teaching people to convey emotions effectively [6], improving human-agent interaction [7], detecting and moderating toxic communication [8], and serving as methodological tools for studying human emotion [9]. This paper examines the capacity of agents to understand human emotional expressions in the context of text-based dispute resolution. Disputes arise when one party in a relationship (an individual, group, or nation) levies a claim that another party refuses to accept, thus threatening the future of the relationship [10].