Fraud detection models in payment networks train on chargeback labels that are systematically biased. Every label must survive three sequential gates: authorization (declined transactions generate no labels), issuer reporting (unreported fraud is invisible), and delay (pending chargebacks are missing at training time). Labels that do arrive may be corrupted by first-party misuse or issuer misclassification. A companion paper [arXiv:2605.27557] proved that these four impairments impose a minimax lower bound on detection performance. This paper asks: can that bound be achieved? We formalize the observation pipeline as a sequential missing-data problem with three propensity stages and a corruption layer, and construct the Sequential Triply Robust (STR) estimator. The STR corrects for all four impairments simultaneously and achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound -- no estimator can have lower asymptotic variance. It is sequentially triply robust: at each gate, consistency requires only that either the propensity model or the outcome regression is correctly specified, not both. We provide corruption correction via noise-rate-adjusted pseudo-labels, empirical Bayes shrinkage to stabilize inverse-propensity weights for small issuers, a plug-in variance estimator yielding valid confidence intervals, and a Bernstein concentration inequality for finite-sample guarantees. On the operational side, we derive the optimal training delay -- the maturity window that minimizes the sum of label-quality loss and model staleness -- and prove that the STR permits training on data that is days old rather than months old, decoupling model freshness from the chargeback maturity cycle. The STR provably dominates naive chargeback-based training in mean squared error for any sample size.

The (gradient-based) bilevel programming framework is widely used in hyperparameter optimization and has achieved excellent performance empirically. Previous theoretical work mainly focuses on its optimization properties, while leaving the analysis on generalization largely open. This paper attempts to address the issue by presenting an expectation bound w.r.t. the validation set based on uniform stability. Our results can explain some mysterious behaviours of the bilevel programming in practice, for instance, overfitting to the validation set. We also present an expectation bound for the classical cross-validation algorithm. Our results suggest that gradient-based algorithms can be better than cross-validation under certain conditions in a theoretical perspective. Furthermore, we prove that regularization terms in both the outer and inner levels can relieve the overfitting problem in gradient-based algorithms. In experiments on feature learning and data reweighting for noisy labels, we corroborate our theoretical findings.

However, in reality, this may not always be the case.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) ( e.g., GPT -3 and ChatGPT) have shown remarkable zero-shot and few-shot performance on various tasks [

Motivated by these limitations,weintroduceahybridapproach,whereLLMcompletionsforagiven taskareusedtolearn atask-specific, context-free surrogatemodel, which isthen used to guide program synthesis.

A contiguous chunk of lines to search for in the existing sourcecode 4. The dividing line: =======5. The lines to replace into the source code6. The end of the replace block: >>>>>>> REPLACEHere is an example: '''python ### mathweb/flask/app.py<<<<<<< SEARCH from flask import Flask ======= import math from flask import Flask >>>>>>> REPLACE ''' Please note that the * SEARCH/REPLACE * edit REQUIRES PROPER INDENTATION.If you would like to add the line ' print(x)', you mustfully write that out, with all those spaces before the code!Wrap the * SEARCH/REPLACE * edit in blocks '''python...'''.The summary of the key differences between the trajectories should bein the thinking part.

Reasoning models often spend a significant amount of time thinking before they generate a visible response. In the meantime, they do not give the user any hints as to whether their reasoning is on the right track, and do not give the user any recourse to stop and correct them if their reasoning is flawed. This creates a frustrating, but unfortunately common, experience: the user's time is wasted while the model reasons from a false premise that could have easily been corrected. In contrast, human speakers typically perform lightweight, incremental grounding acts to ensure that participants in the conversation are on the same page; here we ask if language models can learn to leverage a similar type of behavior? With this motivation, we propose interleaved reasoning (IR), in which the model alternates between thinking and surfacing intermediate responses, as an alternative to the standard "think-then-answer" approach. By providing useful information to the user earlier, IR reduces perceived latency, the time a user waits for an initial output, without compromising the quality of the final response. We further introduce a specialization of interleaved reasoning, Plantain (Plan-Thought-Answer Interleaving), where the first intermediate response is an explicit, step-by-step plan for executing the task. This plan-first strategy allows for user intervention and early feedback for subsequent reasoning steps. We demonstrate that Plantain yields an ~6% improvement in pass@1 across several challenging math reasoning and coding benchmarks, while reducing time-to-first-response by over 60% relative to think-then-answer baselines.