Time series forecasting drives operational decisions in areas like finance, transportation, and energy. While supervised learning approaches achieve strong performance, they require domain-specific training, feature engineering, and ongoing maintenance. Large-scale foundation models have recently emerged as a zero-shot alternative, avoiding task-specific training much like LLMs. In this work, we evaluate foundation models against standard supervised approaches. Rather than focusing solely on aggregate accuracy, we analyze performance across four operational regimes: periodic human-centric systems, physically constrained processes, stochastic financial markets, and heterogeneous demand forecasting. Our results characterize optimal deployment areas. Foundation models perform well in domains with transferable periodic structures and are efficient for cold-start or long-tail scenarios. Conversely, supervised specialists maintain higher precision in systems governed by strict physical constraints. In financial domains, newer foundation models are rapidly closing the performance gap with supervised specialists. We further quantify trade-offs in inference latency, data drift adaptability, and deployment constraints. Finally, we propose a Complexity Router that assigns each series to the optimal model class using empirical features. We demonstrate that this selective routing achieves higher accuracy and significantly lower inference costs compared to deploying a universal foundation model, providing a practical framework for balancing generalization and efficiency.

A local specialist LLM, fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) on operator-local data, is installed in a regulated organization with per-deployment error budget $α$. The operator needs a safety certificate for this deployment's stream at every round: no pooling across deployments, no waiting for a long-run average. Existing wrappers cannot deliver this on adaptive, online-updated streams: offline conformal-risk methods require exchangeability; online-conformal methods bound only long-run averages; non-exchangeable extensions are marginally valid; and the closest anytime wrapper, A-RCPS, controls marginal rather than selective risk. Using a (test statistic, validity guarantee, deployment rule) framework, we identify one empty cell forced by deployment requirements: e-process per threshold, selective risk, anytime-pathwise validity, max-certified-threshold rule. Conformal Selective Acting (CSA) fills it as a per-round wrapper maintaining a Ville-type e-process per threshold on a Bonferroni grid, evaluated against the RLVR filtration. Under predictable updates and isotonic-calibrated monotone risk we prove (i) an anytime-pathwise selective-risk bound $R_T^{\mathrm{act}}\leα+O(N_T^{-1/2})$, (ii) rate-optimal certification matching $Θ(\barη^{-2}\log(1/δ))$, and (iii) a horizon-independent release-rate gap. Across eight specialist benchmarks ($480$ streams), sixteen adversarial distribution-shift cells ($160$ streams), and five live Expert-Iteration RLVR cells with online LoRA over four base models in three architecture families ($10{,}300$ rounds), CSA is the only method among ten compared that satisfies pathwise validity and non-refusing deployment on every cell. We do not propose a new LLM, training algorithm, or policy class; CSA is the deployment-side complement, orthogonal to the model, for operators who cannot use a frontier API.

A natural assumption is that if each model is individually calibrated, the aggregate prediction will also be well calibrated. We show that this assumption fails in multi-agent settings: individually calibrated predictors can become collectively miscalibrated when their predictions interact strategically--where "strategically" refers to the game-theoretic sense of Brier-optimal local response, not deliberate gaming or collusion, and arises naturally whenever agents are independently trained on overlapping data. This phenomenon affects multiple independent agents in federated healthcare, multi-vendor intrusion detection, and crowdsourced forecasting, where agents optimize their own objectives. Specifically, we prove that under Brier-score-based aggregation with positively correlated beliefs each agent's individually optimal report systematically underestimates the positive-class probability, yielding a Price of Anarchy strictly greater than one whenever Cov(bi,bj) > 0. At our canonical setting (n=5 agents, pairwise correlation ρ=0.5, base rate µ=0.3, threshold τ=0.3) the empirically measured PoA in false-negative rate is 7.25 (mean aggregate bias 0.375). In contrast, VCG-based aggregation, which rewards each agent's marginal contribution to aggregate accuracy, achieves dominant-strategy incentive compatibility and the lowest empirical PoA among all mechanisms studied (PoA 1.0). On three real-world datasets (NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, Credit Card Fraud) with featurepartitioned agents, VCG provides the strongest robustness guarantees among the aggregation methods we evaluate, while maintaining comparable accuracy. In data-sparse regimes (n 500), VCG consistently outperforms stacking and majority voting; under adversarial agents, VCG maintains substantially lower false-negative rates than robust aggregation baselines. Adaptive weight updates further reduce false negatives by 20-22% under distribution shift, with O( T) online regret guarantees. These results establish that how probabilistic predictions are aggregated matters as much as how well individual models are calibrated.

We study long-horizon deployment of a frozen predictor under dynamic covariate shift. A time-domain Poincaré inequality reduces temporal risk volatility to derivative energy, and a Jacobian-velocity theorem identifies directional tangent energy along the deployment path as the governing quantity under explicit along-path regularity and domination assumptions. Under low-rank drift, that quantity reduces to directional Jacobian energy in the drift subspace, motivating drift-aligned tangent regularization (DTR) and a matched monitoring proxy. Rather than smoothing the network isotropically, DTR penalizes sensitivity only along estimated drift directions. We validate the theorem-to-method pipeline in four experiments: a synthetic benchmark for the time-domain inequality, a controlled synthetic comparison against isotropic Jacobian regularization, and two frozen-deployment studies on the UCI Air Quality and Tetouan power-consumption datasets. DTR reduces risk volatility and directional gain in the controlled low-rank regime, beats isotropic smoothing there, and gives validation-selected deployment gains on both real datasets when the Air Quality drift subspace is estimated from target-orthogonal sensor motion. Moderate drift-subspace misspecification is tolerable while orthogonal misspecification largely removes the benefit.

As the scope of machine learning broadens, we observe a recurring theme of algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components (e.g.

Can a safety gate permit unbounded beneficial self-modification while maintaining bounded cumulative risk? We formalize this question through dual conditions -- requiring sum delta_n < infinity (bounded risk) and sum TPR_n = infinity (unbounded utility) -- and establish a theory of their (in)compatibility. Classification impossibility (Theorem 1): For power-law risk schedules delta_n = O(n^{-p}) with p > 1, any classifier-based gate under overlapping safe/unsafe distributions satisfies TPR_n <= C_alpha * delta_n^beta via Holder's inequality, forcing sum TPR_n < infinity. This impossibility is exponent-optimal (Theorem 3). A second independent proof via the NP counting method (Theorem 4) yields a 13% tighter bound without Holder's inequality. Universal finite-horizon ceiling (Theorem 5): For any summable risk schedule, the exact maximum achievable classifier utility is U*(N, B) = N * TPR_NP(B/N), growing as exp(O(sqrt(log N))) -- subpolynomial. At N = 10^6 with budget B = 1.0, a classifier extracts at most U* ~ 87 versus a verifier's ~500,000. Verification escape (Theorem 2): A Lipschitz ball verifier achieves delta = 0 with TPR > 0, escaping the impossibility. Formal Lipschitz bounds for pre-LayerNorm transformers under LoRA enable LLM-scale verification. The separation is strict. We validate on GPT-2 (d_LoRA = 147,456): conditional delta = 0 with TPR = 0.352. Comprehensive empirical validation is in the companion paper [D2].

The shift in dynamics results in significant performance degradation of policies trained in the source domain when deployed in a different target domain, posing a challenge for the practical application of reinforcement learning (RL) in real-world scenarios. Domain transfer methods aim to bridge this dynamics gap through techniques such as domain adaptation or domain calibration. While domain adaptation involves refining the policy through extensive interactions in the target domain, it may not be feasible for sensitive fields like healthcare and autonomous driving. On the other hand, offline domain calibration utilizes only static data from the target domain to adjust the physics parameters of the source domain (e.g., a simulator) to align with the target dynamics, enabling the direct deployment of the trained policy without sacrificing performance, which emerges as the most promising for policy deployment. However, existing techniques primarily rely on evolution algorithms for calibration, resulting in low sample efficiency.To tackle this issue, we propose a novel framework Madoc (\textbf{M}ulti-\textbf{a}gent \textbf{do}main \textbf{c}alibration). Firstly, we formulate a bandit RL objective to match the target trajectory distribution by learning a couple of classifiers. We then address the challenge of a large domain parameter space by modeling domain calibration as a cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) problem. Specifically, we utilize a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) to automatically cluster physics parameters with similar effects on the dynamics, grouping them into distinct agents. These grouped agents train calibration policies coordinately to adjust multiple parameters using MARL.Our empirical evaluation on 21 offline locomotion tasks in D4RL and NeoRL benchmarks showcases the superior performance of our method compared to strong existing offline model-based RL, offline domain calibration, and hybrid offline-and-online RL baselines.

As reinforcement learning agents become increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios, predicting future agent actions and events during deployment is important for facilitating better human-agent interaction and preventing catastrophic outcomes. This paper experimentally evaluates and compares the effectiveness of future action and event prediction for three types of RL agents: explicitly planning, implicitly planning, and non-planning. We employ two approaches: the inner state approach, which involves predicting based on the inner computations of the agents (e.g., plans or neuron activations), and a simulation-based approach, which involves unrolling the agent in a learned world model. Our results show that the plans of explicitly planning agents are significantly more informative for prediction than the neuron activations of the other types. Furthermore, using internal plans proves more robust to model quality compared to simulation-based approaches when predicting actions, while the results for event prediction are more mixed. These findings highlight the benefits of leveraging inner states and simulations to predict future agent actions and events, thereby improving interaction and safety in real-world deployments.

Machine learning methods have a groundbreaking impact in many application domains, but their application on real robotic platforms is still limited.Despite the many challenges associated with combining machine learning technology with robotics, robot learning remains one of the most promising directions for enhancing the capabilities of robots. When deploying learning-based approaches on real robots, extra effort is required to address the challenges posed by various real-world factors. To investigate the key factors influencing real-world deployment and to encourage original solutions from different researchers, we organized the Robot Air Hockey Challenge at the NeurIPS 2023 conference. We selected the air hockey task as a benchmark, encompassing low-level robotics problems and high-level tactics. Different from other machine learning-centric benchmarks, participants need to tackle practical challenges in robotics, such as the sim-to-real gap, low-level control issues, safety problems, real-time requirements, and the limited availability of real-world data. Furthermore, we focus on a dynamic environment, removing the typical assumption of quasi-static motions of other real-world benchmarks.The competition's results show that solutions combining learning-based approaches with prior knowledge outperform those relying solely on data when real-world deployment is challenging.Our ablation study reveals which real-world factors may be overlooked when building a learning-based solution.The successful real-world air hockey deployment of best-performing agents sets the foundation for future competitions and follow-up research directions.