Conditional inference trees (CIT) and conditional inference forests (CIF) reduce split-selection bias by testing features before choosing split thresholds, but repeated permutation tests and threshold searches can make these methods computationally expensive. We study CIT and CIF as top-$k$ feature-ranking methods for downstream prediction using real-data benchmarks, runtime ablations, and synthetic feature-recovery experiments. At a fixed node, if the features and permutation budget do not depend on the node responses, Bonferroni-corrected $+1$ Monte Carlo permutation $p$-values control nodewise rejection under the complete permutation null. CIF ranks 4th among 17 classification methods on 22 datasets and 3rd among 18 regression methods on 8 datasets. With Bonferroni correction held fixed, the CIF runtime ablations indicate that adaptive stopping and the number of thresholds searched have the largest measured effect on runtime: turning off adaptive stopping and using exact threshold search increase fitting time by 4.0--8.4$\times$ and 1.9--10.8$\times$, respectively, while downstream score changes are at most 0.011. Sparse high-$p$ simulations indicate that forest feature sampling can leave informative features out of many split decisions. Overall, the results support CIF as a top-$k$ feature-ranking method in the evaluated downstream prediction benchmarks.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. The HP OmniBook Ultra 14 is a luxurious portable laptop that provides solid portability alongside surprisingly excellent performance. The HP Omnibook Ultra 14 is a luxurious portable laptop that provides solid portability alongside surprisingly excellent performance. For a time, it seemed as though the Windows world was going to have to admit defeat at the hands of Apple's almighty silicon. Apple M-series chips are shockingly efficient, which tends to give MacBooks an edge in portability and performance in thin, light laptops.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) is widely used in survey-based business and information systems research to assess latent constructs and theory-driven structural relationships. However, SEM path significance is obtained within a particular model specification and may not show whether findings remain stable under alternative estimation frameworks. This study develops and demonstrates a staged robustness analysis framework that connects SEM, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, and Double Machine Learning (DML). SEM is first used to refine the measurement structure and estimate the robustness-baseline SEM model, in which the full theory-specified structural path system is retained for downstream robustness analysis before final structural path evaluation. OLS regression is then applied to SEM-derived construct scores as a transparent regression benchmark. Finally, DML-style residualisation is used to examine whether each tested focal relationship remains stable after flexible machine-learning-based adjustment for observed controls. Learner-sensitivity checks compare Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector Machine learners, and selected reverse-direction diagnostics are used to examine directional sensitivity. The framework is demonstrated using a FinTech Digital Customer Intimacy survey model. The findings identify which relationships are stable across SEM, OLS, and DML-style checks, and which require more cautious interpretation. A reproducible Google Colab workbook and generated result files are publicly available, providing a reusable template that researchers and students can adapt to other survey-based latent-construct studies. The paper contributes a practical robustness workflow and interpretation guide for survey-based researchers seeking to complement SEM with conventional and machine-learning-based robustness checks.

Self-evolution offers a scalable path to stronger reasoning: a pretrained language model improves itself with only minimal external supervision. Yet existing methods either depend on extensively curated or teacher-generated training data, or, when the generator runs unsupervised, reward it by a difficulty heuristic that need not improve the solver. We introduce INFUSER, an iterative co-training framework with two co-evolving roles: a Generator that drafts questions and reference golden answers from a pool of unstructured, automatically collected documents, and a Solver that improves by training on them. The solver is trained with standard correctness rewards against the generator-provided answers, while the generator is rewarded by an optimizer-aware influence score that measures whether each proposed question would actually improve the solver on the target distribution. Because this continuous, noisy influence score is poorly served by standard GRPO, we propose DuGRPO, a dual-normalized variant of GRPO, for generator training. Together, these turn the document pool into an adaptive curriculum that favors questions useful to the current solver, not just hard ones. On Qwen3-8B-Base, INFUSER outperforms strong self-evolution baselines with over 20% relative improvement on Olympiad and SuperGPQA benchmarks, and an 8B INFUSER co-evolving generator outperforms a frozen 32B thinking generator on math and coding. Ablations confirm each design choice is necessary, and two extensions, applying INFUSER to an instruction-finetuned anchor and augmenting it with rule-verifiable RLVR data, further demonstrate the flexibility and generalizability of the framework. Code is available at https://github.com/FFishy-git/INFUSER.

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

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.

Modern engineering, spanning electrical, mechanical, aerospace, civil, and computer disciplines, stands as a cornerstone of human civilization and the foundation of our society. However, engineering design poses a fundamentally different challenge for large language models (LLMs) compared with traditional textbook-style problem solving or factual question answering. Although existing benchmarks have driven progress in areas such as language understanding, code synthesis, and scientific problem solving, real-world engineering design demands the synthesis of domain knowledge, navigation of complex trade-offs, and management of the tedious processes that consume much of practicing engineers' time. Despite these shared challenges across engineering disciplines, no benchmark currently captures the unique demands of engineering design work. In this work, we introduce EngDesign, an Engineering Design benchmark that evaluates LLMs' abilities to perform practical design tasks across nine engineering domains. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on factual recall or question answering, EngDesign uniquely emphasizes LLMs' ability to synthesize domain knowledge, reason under constraints, and generate functional, objective-oriented engineering designs. Each task in EngDesign represents a real-world engineering design problem, accompanied by a detailed task description specifying design goals, constraints, and performance requirements. EngDesign pioneers a simulation-based evaluation paradigm that moves beyond textbook knowledge to assess genuine engineering design capabilities and shifts evaluation from static answer checking to dynamic, simulation-driven functional verification, marking a crucial step toward realizing the vision of engineering Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

How should we evaluate the quality of generative models? Many existing metrics focus on a model's producibility, i.e. the quality and breadth of outputs it can generate. However, the actual value from using a generative model stems not just from what it can produce but whether a user with a specific goal can produce an output that satisfies that goal. We refer to this property as steerability. In this paper, we first introduce a mathematical decomposition for quantifying steerability independently from producibility.

Empirical Bayes (EB) estimators can match the first-order asymptotic risk of maximum likelihood (ML) while behaving very differently at second order: recent excess mean squared error (XMSE) analysis shows that kernel-based EB estimation may be worse than ML when the kernel is poorly aligned with the true parameter. This paper turns that diagnostic into a design principle. We propose an XMSE-aware mixed estimator that interpolates between ML and EB shrinkage. Its fixed-weight XMSE is a scalar quadratic, yielding a closed-form oracle mixing weight that is no worse than both ML and the base EB estimator at the XMSE scale. A plug-in implementation based on finite-sample XMSE approximations is proved consistent, with a second-order oracle regret rate for an interior oracle weight. We further establish a transfer of the regret bound to the fixed-weight risk curve evaluated at the selected weight, a thresholded boundary rule, and extensions to compact kernel families and to finite and growing kernel dictionaries with high-probability oracle bounds. Finite impulse response simulations with SURE-tuned, hard-selection, and trace-corrected baselines, together with the public Silverbox and Cascaded Tanks benchmarks, show that the proposed estimator retains most of the benefit of regularization when it is helpful and retreats toward ML under kernel misspecification, with an identified finite-de analyzed on the benchmarks.

This paper compares different methods for forecasting the term structure of U.S. and European zero-coupon government bonds using both traditional econometric and Machine Learning (ML) approaches. We compare classical models (e.g., Dynamic Nelson-Siegel (DNS) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA)) with different Neural Network (NN) architectures, including those inspired by the classical models, on the U.S. Treasury market and bonds issued by the European Central Bank (ECB). To enhance predictive performance, macroeconomic variables are incorporated. The findings for both markets are separately analyzed and compared. To this end, we propose a robust model evaluation framework combining statistical accuracy metrics - such as RMSE, MAE, and directional accuracy - with the economic relevance of a quantitative bond trading strategy. Results show that NNs consistently outperform traditional models in both forecasting accuracy and portfolio performance. For the U.S., the most effective approach is a direct-forecasting NN that incorporates DNS factors to reduce the dimensionality of zero-rate data and an Autoencoder (AE) to extract macroeconomic features, while for Europe, the optimal model is a factor-based NN using PCA-derived zero-rate factors without the integration of macroeconomic variables. Overall, the paper demonstrates how combining traditional modeling approaches with modern ML techniques and evaluation can improve yield curve forecasts and support applications in fixed-income portfolio construction.