Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated. Post-hoc calibration provides a simple and widely used solution, but the large number of proposed methods, combined with small-scale and inconsistent evaluations, makes it difficult to determine which approaches are truly effective in practice. We introduce a large-scale, standardized benchmark for post-hoc calibration, covering nearly 2000 experiments across tabular and computer vision tasks, including binary, multiclass, and large-scale classification settings. Our benchmark aggregates predictions from a diverse set of classical models, modern deep learning architectures, and foundation models, and provides unified, reproducible implementations of dozens of calibration methods within a common evaluation framework. We argue that Post-Hoc Improvement (PHI) in proper scoring rules offers a principled alternative to traditional calibration error estimators for comparing post-hoc methods, capturing both calibration quality and potential degradation to the model's predictive performance. Using this framework, we conduct the most comprehensive empirical study of post-hoc calibration to date. Our results reveal consistent patterns across domains: smooth calibration functions outperform binning-based approaches, dedicated multiclass methods are essential in high-dimensional settings, and generic machine learning models are not competitive without calibration-specific design. To facilitate future research, we release all data, code, and evaluation tools, providing a plug-and-play benchmark for developing and comparing calibration methods.

Causal-discovery algorithms return a directed graph, yet provide no principled means of distinguishing edge directions identified by the data from those assigned without an identifying assumption. Under the standard Markov and faithfulness conditions, the observational distribution identifies only a Markov equivalence class; orientations within that class are not determined by the joint distribution and cannot be recovered from additional samples alone, but require either a functional restriction or an intervention. We introduce a protocol for observational causal discovery on continuous data that attaches to each candidate edge a discrete impossibility certificate: a RESOLVED code records the identifiability theorem under which the direction was committed, while an IMPOSSIBLE code records the failure mode together with the specific question a domain expert must answer to resolve it. The bivariate cascade is extended with five gated identifiability tiers LSNM, IGCI, Stein, MDL, and PEIT that abstain when their precondition test rejects. Two oracle primitives, the meta-hub query and the node-children query, jointly establish an upper bound of $1+K$ expert interactions sufficient to recover any DAG, where $K$ denotes the number of non-leaf vertices. Under an ideal-oracle assumption, the bound is met exactly on the asia, sachs, child, and alarm benchmarks.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a standard recipe for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models. Existing algorithms face a tradeoff between computational efficiency and sample efficiency in value estimation and policy learning. We introduce BASIS, a critic-free post-training algorithm designed to address this tradeoff. At each online training step, BASIS samples only one rollout per prompt, but leverages rich information across prompts in the entire batch to improve value function estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that BASIS reduces MSE in value function estimation by 69% compared to REINFORCE++, a representative single-rollout baseline, and achieves lower MSE with one rollout than group mean estimators with 8 rollouts. This improvement in value estimation translates to better policy optimization: using substantially less training time, BASIS achieves performance close to multi-rollout GRPO-type baselines and often outperforms single-rollout REINFORCE-type baselines.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with machine learning has attracted substantial attention in both academic research and industrial practice. However, the two communities often evaluate models under markedly different conditions. Methodological work typically relies on semi-simulated benchmarks and metrics that require counterfactual outcomes, whereas real-world applications rely on observable metrics based on ranking or test outcomes. Despite the well-known gap between methodological progress and practical deployment, the relationship between these evaluation regimes has not been examined systematically. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of treatment effect evaluation across standard semi-simulated benchmark families and real-world datasets. Our benchmark covers meta-learners paired with multiple base learners, as well as specialized causal machine learning models. We evaluate these methods using observable metrics common in application-oriented literature, alongside counterfactual metrics commonly used in methods papers. Our results reveal two complementary gaps. First, counterfactual metrics do not reliably recover the estimators preferred by observable metrics, even on the same semi-simulated benchmarks. Second, rankings obtained on semi-simulated benchmarks do not transfer to real datasets. We further find that simple meta-learners with strong base models are consistently competitive, in contrast to specialized causal models. Overall, our findings suggest that progress in treatment effect estimation research should not be assessed solely through counterfactual metrics and semi-simulated benchmarks, but it would benefit from incorporating observable metrics and real-data validation.

This paper studies the joint role of long-memory dynamics,rough-volatility behavior, and persistence-based forecasting features in equity volatility modeling. We combine semiparametric long-memory estimation, rough-volatility diagnostics, and structured forecasting regressions to examine whether persistence measures contain economically meaningful forecasting information beyond conventional volatility predictors. Using a panel of 115 S&P500 constituents from November 2001 through April 2026, we document that volatility proxies exhibit substantial long-memory behavior and locally rough dynamics. The cross-sectional mean Geweke-Porter-Hudak estimate of the memory parameter is $\hat{d} = 0.226$, while the corresponding local-Whittle estimate is $\hat{d} = 0.440$, with statistical significance observed across nearly the entire panel. Rolling estimates of persistence rise substantially during the global financial crisis and the COVID period and display a positive contemporaneous association with the VIX. We then examine whether persistence-related features improve out-of-sample volatility forecasts beyond standard HAR and HAR-X benchmarks. Incorporating cross-sectional persistence aggregates, sectoral persistence measures, and persistence-by-stress interaction terms produces moderate but statistically significant forecasting improvements, particularly at longer horizons and during stress regimes. Forecast gains are strongest during periods of elevated market volatility and in volatility-managed portfolio applications. The results suggest that persistence measures may serve as useful reduced-form indicators of the duration and propagation of uncertainty in financial markets, although the paper does not claim structural identification of the economic mechanisms generating persistence.

Context or prompt-level reweighting has emerged as a central algorithmic lever in Reinforcement Learning with Verified Rewards (RLVR) for improving the reasoning capability of large language models, yet the principle determining what constitutes an optimal weighting remains poorly understood. We address this gap by formulating prompt reweighting as a functional derivative of a utility functional defined in the pass-rate function space, yielding a unified optimality framework that accommodates existing schemes, including REINFORCE and GRPO. Building on this optimality framework, we propose a distribution-aware prompt reweighting approach, called CurveRL, based on a quantile coordinate transform, in which the weight assigned to each prompt depends not on the absolute value of pass rates but on its rank and density to reflect the distributional structure of the pass rates in the learning dynamics. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed CurveRL consistently outperforms GRPO and other RLVR baselines. Our study identifies context-distribution control as a principled axis for analyzing and designing prompt-reweighted RLVR algorithms. The code is released in https://github.com/zhyzmath/CurveRL.

Efficient benchmarking techniques aim to lower the computational cost of evaluating LLMs by predicting full benchmark scores using only a subset of a benchmark's questions. By reframing this problem as an instance of multiple regression with feature selection, we find that existing efficient benchmarking methods can be greatly improved by simply using kernel ridge regression at the prediction stage. Additionally, using an information-theoretic feature-selection algorithm called minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR), we can further improve upon these methods by selecting question subsets that will be maximally useful for prediction. Except in very data-poor settings, these approaches consistently achieve smaller prediction errors (in both MAE and RMSE), and greater ranking correlation between predicted and true scores (in both Spearman $ρ$ and Kendall $τ$) across a range of benchmarks using both binary and continuous metrics. Furthermore, mRMR subsampling is much faster than competitor methods (which often involve fitting probabilistic models or running clustering algorithms), and is more likely to select the same questions under different random seeds or training data splits. Tutorial code can be found at https://github.com/sambowyer/mrmr_eval .

Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of established science. We introduce DiscoverPhysics, an interactive benchmark that asks a LLM agent to discover the laws of motion of a simulated world whose physics deliberately deviates from our own. We construct 22 worlds governed by, among others, screened and fractional-power gravity, multi-species couplings, hidden dark-matter-like particles, non-coordinate-free physics, and time-varying interactions. Each world is generated on demand by an N-body simulator, for which the agent proposes several rounds of experiments, observes raw trajectory data, and ultimately submits both a natural-language explanation of the world's physics and a Python implementation of the inferred law. Because solving a world requires the agent to design informative experiments and revise its hypotheses, the benchmark probes long-horizon reasoning over an experimental history. We evaluate submissions along two complementary axes: trajectory MSE on held-out particles and an LLM-judged explanation score following an expert-written rubric assessing conceptual understanding of each world. Across eleven frontier models, we find that the strongest agents pass only half of the worlds and consistently fail on those where latent structure must be uncovered. Open-source models lag substantially behind commercial models, both in their ability to design informative experiments and in extracting conclusions from the data. We further find that good predictive accuracy does not guarantee high explanation quality and that conceptual understanding depends on hypothesis refinement through well-chosen experiments.

We introduce training-free looped transformers, in which a lightweight inference-time wrapper loops a contiguous mid-stack block of layers of a frozen checkpoint without additional fine-tuning, continued training, or architectural changes. Unlike prior looped transformer methods that train with the looped structure end-to-end, we retrofit recurrence onto pretrained models at test time. We show that naive block reapplication usually degrades performance, highlighting the importance of the loop application strategy. Motivated by viewing a pre-norm transformer block as a forward Euler step on an ODE, we instead treat looping as a refinement of the same approximation, replacing one large update with smaller damped sub-steps. Across seven dense, sparse MoE, and MLA+MoE model families, our method improves Qwen3-4B-Instruct by +2.64 pp on MMLU-Pro, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct by +1.14 pp on CommonsenseQA, and Moonlight-16B-A3B-Instruct by +1.20 pp on OpenBookQA.

Conventional wisdom holds that large-batch training is fundamentally incompatible with Reinforcement Learning (RL) - beyond a modest threshold, increasing batch sizes typically yields diminishing returns or performance degradation due to the inherent non-stationarity of the data distribution. We challenge this view by observing that non-stationarity is not a fixed property of RL, but evolves throughout training: early stages exhibit rapid behavioral shifts that demand small batches for plasticity, whereas late stages approach a quasi-stationary regime where large batches enable precise convergence. Motivated by this observation, we propose Adaptive Batch Scaling (ABS), that dynamically adjusts the effective batch size according to the stability of the learning policy. Central to ABS is Behavioral Divergence, a novel metric that quantifies policy non-stationarity by measuring action-level shifts between consecutive updates, which we use to scale batch size inversely to policy volatility. Integrated with the Parallelised Q-Network (PQN) algorithm and evaluated on the ALE benchmark, ABS seamlessly reconciles early-stage plasticity with late-stage stable convergence. Strikingly, contrary to conventional wisdom, our results reveal that the combination of larger networks and larger batch sizes achieves the best performance - a scaling behavior previously thought to be unattainable in RL, now unlocked through adaptive batch control.