Data valuation quantifies the intrinsic quality of individual samples to enable principled data curation, quality control, and robust learning. For time series in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and industrial monitoring, effective valuation methods are essential yet fundamentally lacking. Existing approaches are either model-dependent, limiting their generalizability, or designed for i.i.d. data and thus fail to capture temporal dependencies, multi-scale patterns, and non-stationary dynamics inherent to sequential data. We introduce TimeLAVA, a learning-agnostic framework that values temporal segments by their marginal contribution to minimizing distributional discrepancy between evaluated and reference data. At its core is a novel Selective Wavelet-based Wasserstein discrepancy combining multi-scale wavelet transforms for temporal localization with unbalanced optimal transport for robustness to distributional shifts. Segment values are efficiently computed via sensitivity analysis without requiring model training and aggregated into point-wise scores. We provide theoretical guarantees linking valuation to model-agnostic generalization and prove bounded sensitivity to outlier contamination. Extensive experiments across anomaly detection, data pruning, and label noise detection demonstrate that TimeLAVA produces significantly more informative value scores than existing methods on diverse real-world datasets.

Benchmarks of machine learning models often include many datasets, making evaluation expensive. For efficiency, it is preferable to perform evaluations on small, representative datasets instead. The selection of such subsets typically relies on heuristics and is rarely analyzed for the robustness of the resulting model rankings. We introduce a framework to perform the task of selecting datasets subsets with an evaluation of how different selection strategies preserve the global model rankings. Our framework includes bootstrap aggregation, which provides valid confidence intervals, allowing a principled comparison of selection strategies. We consider clustering, design criteria (A/D-optimality), random baselines, and greedy farthest-first (FAFI). For the latter, we derive upper bounds on selection quality in terms of ranking errors as a function of the number of selected datasets. Empirically, in time series classification (TSC, 112 datasets) and in a supplementary natural language processing benchmark derived from MTEB (57 tasks), several selection strategies improve rank preservation compared with random subsets, including simple FAFI. In contrast, in recommender systems (30 datasets), the improvement of strategies over random selection is small and typically statistically insignificant. For TSC, our best-performing strategy achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.95 with the full benchmark model rankings using only five selected datasets. Additional experiments indicate that the effectiveness of selection approaches depends on both the quality of dataset representations and the scale of the benchmarking regime.

Synthetic data augmentation is widely used to mitigate class imbalance, but its theoretical effects on score-based classification remain poorly understood. This paper develops a framework for characterizing when synthetic minority augmentation can improve threshold-integrated and threshold-optimized metrics, including AUROC, AUPRC, best-threshold balanced accuracy, and best-threshold \(\F_1\) score. We separate the effect of augmentation into two components: a change in effective class weighting and a discrepancy between the synthetic and true minority distributions. Under well-specified score models, the raw estimator already targets the likelihood-ratio ordering, which is population-optimal for the metrics considered. Consequently, augmentation cannot provide a fundamental population-level improvement beyond possible finite-sample variance reduction, and may introduce additional bias through synthetic distributional error. We further establish minimax lower bounds showing that the raw estimator already achieves the optimal metric-regret rate in the well-specified regime. Under misspecification, however, augmentation can play a qualitatively different role: by changing the effective class balance, it can alter the restricted-class projection and correct ranking errors induced by the raw imbalanced objective. We provide explicit improvement bounds quantifying the roles of approximation error, finite-sample estimation error, and synthetic distributional error. Simulation studies corroborate the theory, demonstrating limited gains under well-specification and nontrivial but nonmonotone improvements under misspecification.

Survival analysis is central to clinical decision-making, yet reliable time-to-event models require large, diverse cohorts that are rarely available at a single institution, while privacy regulations restrict the centralization of patient data. Federated learning (FL) offers a privacy-preserving alternative by training shared models without exchanging raw data, but its effectiveness for survival modeling under realistic, heterogeneous conditions remains insufficiently understood. This paper presents a systematic, multi-model evaluation of federated survival analysis on a cross-institutional breast cancer cohort with naturally heterogeneous distributed clients. Three representative survival models, the Cox Proportional Hazards model, DeepSurv, and Random Survival Forest (RSF), are compared across centralized, local, and federated training, and three federated optimization strategies (FedAvg, FedProx, and FedAdam) are assessed for the gradient-based models. Results show that FL consistently outperforms local training and approaches, and occasionally exceeds, centralized performance, while RSF offers the best overall balance of discrimination, calibration, and robustness across heterogeneous clients. We further find that performance depends on the diversity of client distributions, and that FedAvg and FedProx are stronger and more stable than FedAdam. Based on these findings, we derive practical, decision-oriented guidelines mapping data, privacy, interpretability, and resource constraints to recommended model and training-paradigm choices for federated survival modeling in healthcare.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) derive their capabilities from extensive training on vast corpora of visual and textual data.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved notable success in code-generation benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench. However, a detailed examination reveals that these evaluation suites often comprise only a limited number of homogeneous test cases, resulting in subtle faults going undetected. This not only artificially inflates measured performance but also compromises accurate reward estimation in reinforcement learning frameworks utilizing verifiable rewards (RLVR). To address these critical shortcomings, we systematically investigate the test-case generation (TCG) task by proposing multi-dimensional metrics designed to rigorously quantify test-suite thoroughness. Furthermore, we introduce a human-LLM collaborative method (SAGA), leveraging human programming expertise with LLM reasoning capability, aimed at significantly enhancing both the coverage and the quality of generated test cases.

Skill Incremental Learning (SIL) is the process by which an embodied agent expands and refines its skill set over time by leveraging experience gained through interaction with its environment or by the integration of additional data. SIL facilitates efficient acquisition of hierarchical policies grounded in reusable skills for downstream tasks. However, as the skill repertoire evolves, it can disrupt compatibility with existing skill-based policies, limiting their reusability and generalization. In this work, we propose SIL-C, a novel framework that ensures skill-policy compatibility, allowing improvements in incrementally learned skills to enhance the performance of downstream policies without requiring policy re-training or structural adaptation. SIL-C employs a bilateral lazy learning-based mapping technique to dynamically align the subtask space referenced by policies with the skill space decoded into agent behaviors. This enables each subtask, derived from the policy's decomposition of a complex task, to be executed by selecting an appropriate skill based on trajectory distribution similarity. We evaluate SIL-C across diverse SIL scenarios and demonstrate that it maintains compatibility between evolving skills and downstream policies while ensuring efficiency throughout the learning process.

State-of-the-art membership inference attacks (MIAs) typically require training many reference models, making it difficult to scale these attacks to large pre-trained language models (LLMs). As a result, prior research has either relied on weaker attacks that avoid training references (e.g., fine-tuning attacks), or on stronger attacks applied to small models and datasets. However, weaker attacks have been shown to be brittle and insights from strong attacks in simplified settings do not translate to today's LLMs. These challenges prompt an important question: are the limitations observed in prior work due to attack design choices, or are MIAs fundamentally ineffective on LLMs? We address this question by scaling LiRA--one of the strongest MIAs--to GPT-2 architectures ranging from 10M to 1B parameters, training references on over 20B tokens from the C4 dataset. Our results advance the understanding of MIAs on LLMs in four key ways. While (1) strong MIAs can succeed on pretrained LLMs, (2) their effectiveness, remains limited (e.g., AUC<0.7) in practical settings.

We introduce Martingale Doppelgänger-Eval, a public shadow-market benchmark for auditing whether vision-language models (VLMs) use candlestick evidence rather than extrapolate past trends. The central difficulty is identification: on real market histories, chart evidence and trend are strongly coupled, so an observational score cannot determine whether a fluent technical-analysis narrative is grounded in local visual evidence. We prove this limitation formally: no evaluation functional computed from observational chart--label data can distinguish a grounded responder from a trend-shortcut responder under strong coupling, whereas matched evidence interventions separate the same responders at an exponential rate and trend--label swaps provide an independent shortcut stress test. The benchmark therefore evaluates frozen VLMs on rendered OHLCV charts under four controlled mechanisms: a martingale-null market, injected-alpha counterfactual pairs, trend-confounder swaps, and regime shifts. A structural behavioral model identifies null-market bias, trend sensitivity, evidence sensitivity, prompt/renderer fragility, and evidence faithfulness; the accompanying statistical toolkit provides minimum detectable effects, block-aware sequential testing for metered APIs, and an overlap-weighted artifact check. Across frozen commercial and open VLMs, the identified regression assigns large positive coefficients to past trend but evidence coefficients that are zero or opposite to the rule-implied sign. Matched-pair analyses show that models either ignore injected candlestick semantics or move opposite to the rule-implied direction conditional on responding. The benchmark isolates a failure mode that standard observational chart benchmarks cannot detect and gives a reusable audit template for time-series imagery with controllable label mechanisms.

Predicting interactions between biochemical entities is a core challenge in drug discovery and systems biology, often hindered by limited data and poor generalization to unseen entities. Traditional discriminative models frequently underperform in such settings. We propose BioCG (Biochemical Constrained Generation), a novel framework that reformulates interaction prediction as a constrained sequence generation task. BioCG encodes target entities as unique discrete sequences via Iterative Residual Vector Quantization (I-RVQ) and trains a generative model to produce the sequence of an interacting partner given a query entity. A trie-guided constrained decoding mechanism, built from a catalog of valid target sequences, concentrates the model's learning on the critical distinctions between valid biochemical options, ensuring all outputs correspond to an entity within the pre-defined target catalog. An information-weighted training objective further focuses learning on the most critical decision points. BioCG achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance across diverse tasks, Drug-Target Interaction (DTI), Drug-Drug Interaction (DDI), and Enzyme-Reaction Prediction, especially in data-scarce and cold-start conditions.