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.

While other areas of machine learning have seen more and more automation, designing a high-performing recommender system still requires a high level of human effort. Furthermore, recent work has shown that modern recommender system algorithms do not always improve over well-tuned baselines. A natural follow-up question is, "how do we choose the right algorithm for a new dataset and performance metric?" In this work, we start by giving the first large-scale study of recommender system approaches by comparing 24 algorithms and 100 sets of hyperparameters across 85 datasets and 315 metrics. We find that the best algorithms and hyperparameters are highly dependent on the dataset and performance metric. However, there is also a strong correlation between the performance of each algorithm and various meta-features of the datasets. Motivated by these findings, we create RecZilla, a meta-learning approach to recommender systems that uses a model to predict the best algorithm and hyperparameters for new, unseen datasets. By using far more meta-training data than prior work, RecZilla is able to substantially reduce the level of human involvement when faced with a new recommender system application.

This study surveys the historical development of regularization, tracing its evolution from stepwise regression in the 1960s to recent advancements in formal error control, structured penalties for non-independent features, Bayesian methods, and l0-based regularization (among other techniques). We empirically evaluate the performance of four canonical frameworks -- Ridge, Lasso, ElasticNet, and Post-Lasso OLS -- across 134,400 simulations spanning a 7-dimensional manifold grounded in eight production-grade machine learning models. Our findings demonstrate that for prediction accuracy when the sample-to-feature ratio is sufficient (n/p >= 78), Ridge, Lasso, and ElasticNet are nearly interchangeable. However, we find that Lasso recall is highly fragile under multicollinearity; at high condition numbers (kappa) and low SNR, Lasso recall collapses to 0.18 while ElasticNet maintains 0.93. Consequently, we advise practitioners against using Lasso or Post-Lasso OLS at high kappa with small sample sizes. The analysis concludes with an objective-driven decision guide to assist machine learning engineers in selecting the optimal scikit-learn-supported framework based on observable feature space attributes.

Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics.

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Hereafter, we list reviewers' (sometimes paraphrased) Each answer will translate into a clarification in the final version. Reviewer #2 and #3 felt that our message was lacking clarity. A.2). We will add more pointers to their statistical analysis, from the existing literature (e.g. L81-90 in the main paper, often α(m) = 1/ m in these works).