Recent studies suggest that the representations learned by large language models (LLMs) are partially aligned to those of the human brain. However, whether and why this alignment score arises from a similar sequence of computations remains elusive. In this study, we explore this question by examining temporally-resolved brain signals of participants listening to 10 hours of an audiobook. We study these neural dynamics jointly with a benchmark encompassing 17 LLMs varying in size and architecture type. Our analyses confirm that LLMs and the brain generate representations in a similar order: specifically, activations in the initial layers of LLMs tend to best align with early brain responses, while the deeper layers of LLMs tend to best align with later brain responses. This brain-LLM alignment is consistent across transformers and recurrent architectures. However, its emergence depends on both model size and context length.

The rise of parallel computing hardware has made it increasingly important to understand which nonlinear state space models can be efficiently parallelized.

Adaptive specification search generates statistically significant backtests even under martingale-difference nulls. We introduce a falsification audit testing complete predictive workflows against synthetic reference classes, including zero-predictability environments and microstructure placebos. Workflows generating significant walk-forward evidence in these environments are falsified. For passing workflows, we quantify selection-induced performance inflation using an absolute magnitude gap linking optimized in-sample evidence to disjoint walk-forward realizations, adjusted for effective multiplicity. Simulations validate extreme-value scaling under correlated searches and demonstrate detection power under genuine structure. Empirical case studies confirm that many apparent findings represent methodological artifacts rather than genuine predictability.

Weapplythisnovelformulation of inference as controlto the canonical problem of inferring the hidden scalar state of a linear dynamical system with Gaussian variability.

Machine learning (ML) methods are highly flexible, but their ability to approximate the true data-generating process is fundamentally constrained by finite samples. We characterize a universal lower bound, the Limits-to-Learning Gap (LLG), quantifying the unavoidable discrepancy between a model's empirical fit and the population benchmark. Recovering the true population $R^2$, therefore, requires correcting observed predictive performance by this bound. Using a broad set of variables, including excess returns, yields, credit spreads, and valuation ratios, we find that the implied LLGs are large. This indicates that standard ML approaches can substantially understate true predictability in financial data. We also derive LLG-based refinements to the classic Hansen and Jagannathan (1991) bounds, analyze implications for parameter learning in general-equilibrium settings, and show that the LLG provides a natural mechanism for generating excess volatility.