Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) including consumer wearable devices and digital health applications offer an opportunity for continuous, large-scale data collection. Wearables give insight into physiological biomarkers that help us understand the human body, through passive data collection. Such data can be collected at a regularity that would be impossible otherwise. Digital health applications provide the chance to collect diverse types of data from clinically validated surveys, GPS, and contextual inputs. This combination has the ability to make profound advances in our understanding of the factors that affect individuals on a personal and population level [Grace et al., 2025]. One of these factors is the menstrual cycle. Particularly because of its inter-individual variability, studying it requires large sample sizes, and to truly grasp its effects on the human body, it needs to be observed on a near-daily scale [Bull et al., 2019].

Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.

Spiking reservoir computing provides an energy-efficient approach to temporal processing, but reliably tuning reservoirs to operate at the edge-of-chaos is challenging due to experimental uncertainty. This work bridges abstract notions of criticality and practical stability by introducing and exploiting the robustness interval, an operational measure of the hyperparameter range over which a reservoir maintains performance above task-dependent thresholds. Through systematic evaluations of Leaky Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) architectures on both static (MNIST) and temporal (synthetic Ball Trajectories) tasks, we identify consistent monotonic trends in the robustness interval across a broad spectrum of network configurations: the robustness-interval width decreases with presynaptic connection density $β$ (i.e., directly with sparsity) and directly with the firing threshold $θ$. We further identify specific $(β, θ)$ pairs that preserve the analytical mean-field critical point $w_{\text{crit}}$, revealing iso-performance manifolds in the hyperparameter space. Control experiments on Erdős-Rényi graphs show the phenomena persist beyond small-world topologies. Finally, our results show that $w_{\text{crit}}$ consistently falls within empirical high-performance regions, validating $w_{\text{crit}}$ as a robust starting coordinate for parameter search and fine-tuning. To ensure reproducibility, the full Python code is publicly available.

General Circulation Models (GCMs) are widely used for future climate projections, but their coarse spatial resolution and systematic biases limit their direct use for impact studies. This limitation is particularly critical for wind-related applications, such as wind energy, which require spatially coherent, multivariate, and physically plausible near-surface wind fields. Classical statistical downscaling and bias correction methods partly address this issue. Still, they struggle to preserve spatial structure, inter-variable consistency, and robustness under climate change, especially in high-dimensional settings. Recent advances in generative machine learning offer new opportunities for downscaling and bias correction, eliminating the need for explicitly paired low- and high-resolution datasets. However, many existing approaches remain difficult to interpret and challenging to deploy in operational climate impact studies. In this work, we apply SerpentFlow, an interpretable, generative, domain alignment framework, to the multivariate downscaling and bias correction of wind variables from GCM outputs. This is a method that generates low-resolution/high-resolution training data pairs by separating large-scale spatial patterns from small-scale variability. Large-scale components are aligned across climate model and observational domains. Conditional fine-scale variability is then learned using a flow-matching generative model. We apply the approach to multiple wind variables downscaling, including average and maximal wind speed, zonal and meridional components, and compare it with widely used multivariate bias correction methods. Results show improved spatial coherence, inter-variable consistency, and robustness under future climate conditions, highlighting the potential of interpretable generative models for wind and energy applications.

While climate models provide insights for climate decision-making, their use is constrained by significant computational and technical demands. Although machine learning (ML) emulators offer a way to bypass the high computational costs, their effective use remains challenging. The hurdles are diverse, ranging from limited accessibility and a lack of specialized knowledge to a general mistrust of ML methods that are perceived as insufficiently physical. Here, we introduce a framework to overcome these barriers by integrating both climate science and machine learning perspectives. We find that designing easy-to-adopt emulators that address a clearly defined task and demonstrating their reliability offers a promising path for bridging the gap between our two fields.

Abstract: We use the law of total variance to generate multiple expansions for the posterior predictive variance. These expansions are sums of terms involving conditional expectations and conditional variances and provide a quantification of the sources of predictive uncertainty. Since the posterior predictive variance is fixed given the model, it represents a constant quantity that is conserved over these expansions. The terms in the expansions can be assessed in absolute or relative sense to understand the main contributors to the length of prediction intervals. We quantify the term-wise uncertainty across expansions varying in the number of terms and the order of conditionates. In particular, given that a specific term in one expansion is small or zero, we identify the other terms in other expansions that must also be small or zero. We illustrate this approach to predictive model assessment in several well-known models. The Setting and Intuition Everyone uses prediction intervals (PI's) but few examine their structure or more precisely how they should be interpreted in the context of a model with multiple components. Often PI's seem overconfident (too narrow) or useless (too wide). Both frequentist and Bayesian practitioners routinely report PI's.

Deep learning models have become the dominant approach for multivariate time series anomaly detection (MTSAD), often reporting substantial performance improvements over classical statistical methods. However, these gains are frequently evaluated under heterogeneous thresholding strategies and evaluation protocols, making fair comparisons difficult. This work revisits OmniAnomaly, a widely used stochastic recurrent model for MTSAD, and systematically compares it with a simple linear baseline based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the Server Machine Dataset (SMD). Both methods are evaluated under identical thresholding and evaluation procedures, with experiments repeated across 100 runs for each of the 28 machines in the dataset. Performance is evaluated using Precision, Recall and F1-score at point-level, with and without point-adjustment, and under different aggregation strategies across machines and runs, with the corresponding standard deviations also reported. The results show large variability across machines and show that PCA can achieve performance comparable to OmniAnomaly, and even outperform it when point-adjustment is not applied. These findings question the added value of more complex architectures under current benchmarking practices and highlight the critical role of evaluation methodology in MTSAD research.

When working with real-world insurance data, practitioners often encounter challenges during the data preparation stage that can undermine the statistical validity and reliability of downstream modeling. This study illustrates that conventional data preparation procedures such as random train-test partitioning, often yield unreliable and unstable results when confronted with highly imbalanced insurance loss data. To mitigate these limitations, we propose a novel data preparation framework leveraging two recent statistical advancements: support points for representative data splitting to ensure distributional consistency across partitions, and the Chatterjee correlation coefficient for initial, non-parametric feature screening to capture feature relevance and dependence structure. We further integrate these theoretical advances into a unified, efficient framework that also incorporates missing-data handling, and embed this framework within our custom InsurAutoML pipeline. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated using both simulated datasets and datasets often cited in the academic literature. Our findings definitively demonstrate that incorporating statistically rigorous data preparation methods not only significantly enhances model robustness and interpretability but also substantially reduces computational resource requirements across diverse insurance loss modeling tasks. This work provides a crucial methodological upgrade for achieving reliable results in high stakes insurance applications.

A central challenge in sensory neuroscience is to understand neural computations and circuit mechanisms that underlie the encoding of ethologically relevant, natural stimuli. In multilayered neural circuits, nonlinear processes such as synaptic transmission and spiking dynamics present a significant obstacle to the creation of accurate computational models of responses to natural stimuli. Here we demonstrate that deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) capture retinal responses to natural scenes nearly to within the variability of a cell's response, and are markedly more accurate than linear-nonlinear (LN) models and Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Moreover, we find two additional surprising properties of CNNs: they are less susceptible to overfitting than their LN counterparts when trained on small amounts of data, and generalize better when tested on stimuli drawn from a different distribution (e.g. between natural scenes and white noise). An examination of the learned CNNs reveals several properties.

In these frameworks, templates are constructed using an iterative process of template estimation and alignment, which is often computationally very expensive. Due in part to this shortcoming, most methods compute asingle template for the entire population of images, or a few templates for specific sub-groups of the data.