Effect Sizes

Open-weight large language models are rapidly entering hiring pipelines, yet their discriminatory failure modes -- and the regulatory exposure these create under the EU AI Act high-risk classification (Annex III) and U.S. EEOC adverse-impact analysis -- remain poorly understood. We present the first systematic, multi-model audit of open-weight LLMs that treats job-posting language as the primary experimental variable, evaluating six models (Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Phi 3, DeepSeek-R1) across four controlled experiments that jointly probe recruiter-simulation and job-seeker-simulation tasks. We find that (1) agentic posting language depresses recruiter recommendation scores for female candidates (r_rb = 0.309, p_Bonf = 7x10^-5; model-fixed-effects r_rb = 0.448), while communal language partially reverses the penalty; and (2) coded-exclusion language suppresses non-White recruiter scores at large effect sizes (r_rb = 0.646-0.758) and, on the job-seeker side, selectively deters non-White personas from expressing interest -- operationalizing a chilling-effect mechanism at scale. A label-ablation experiment isolates the explicit demographic persona label as the primary causal driver, and Word Embedding Association Tests corroborate these findings at the representational level (d = 1.01-1.45 under Caliskan et al.'s multi-word gender attribute lists). We translate these results into a concrete pre-deployment audit protocol -- posting-vocabulary scoring, persona-conditioned LLM probing, and adverse-impact flagging against the four-fifths threshold -- that operationalizes the documentation and risk-management obligations Annex III imposes on high-risk AI in recruitment.

Normative age models are trained to predict chronological age in a nominally healthy cohort. Applied to patients, they deviate, and the gap between predicted and chronological age is read as disease risk. Here, we attribute the disease-related effect size of the age gap directly to individual training samples, rather than using a prediction-level loss as the attribution target. For Cohen's $d$, the resulting closed-form influence functional, validated against leave-one-out retraining, ranks training samples by their effect on held-out case-control separation. Across four diseases and two biomarker modalities in UK Biobank, removing the 10% most influential training samples raises held-out disease-related effect size in every seed. It more than doubles the metabolomic-age effect for type-2 diabetes and raises the brain-age effect for multiple sclerosis by roughly a third. Random removal leaves effect size flat even at 50% removal, confirming the gain comes from which samples are removed, not how many. Flagged subjects carry subclinical cardiometabolic burden that diagnosis-based exclusion misses, on markers the model never sees. For type-2 diabetes, where the method gains most, the marker recovered is HbA1c, the standard measure of blood sugar control. We release pyinfluence, our influence-function package, for reproducibility and reuse.

Background: Researchers increasingly use repeated identical prompts to audit stochastic variation in large language model (LLM) brand recommendations, yet no standardized protocol exists for setting iteration counts, selecting stability metrics, or establishing reliability thresholds. Objective: We formalize the Dice Roll Method as a reusable protocol for repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations, grounded in a generative model of temperature-scaled nucleus sampling. Methods: Total response variance is decomposed into sampling, prompt-phrasing, run-to-run, and model-version components. The stack: a negative-binomial mixed model with iterations as repeated measures; Cliff's delta as the distribution-free effect size; dependence-preserving bootstrap; simulation-based power; a generalizability-theory decomposition; drift diagnostics on pinned snapshots. We reanalyse five brand-recommendation auditing studies: approximately 190,000 observations, 270+ brands, 6 languages, iteration counts 5 to 40. Results: Three tiers of iteration guidance emerge from the D-study: exploratory (n = 5, G = 0.58), confirmatory (n = 10, G = 0.74), and rigorous (n = 15, G = 0.81), tied to effect-size and generalizability targets. The four metric families (count, set, embedding, fairness-adjusted PASOR) are complementary, motivating a compact metric battery over single indicators. A pre-registered external validation on three independent corpora (Motoki et al., 100-round; Rozado, 24 models; llm-stability) reproduces the D-study reliability prediction in 37 of 39 cells with no failures and the n = 5 power value to two decimals; the fixed tiers do not transfer, supporting a pilot-then-solve reading. Conclusion: The protocol gives repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations a statistically principled footing under the conditional, non-Gaussian structure of real autoregressive generation.

Online credit card discussions provide a natural setting for studying how consumers communicate about financial products. Simulating these discussions requires more than just generating individual comments, the generated threads should also match how real users express themselves and interact with others. We introduce CARD, a framework for generating realistic credit card discussion threads. Given a credit card post and its matched real thread, CARD uses non-verbatim guidance on reply structure, comment function, stance, tone, and conversational variation. A planner organizes these controls, a writer generates the discussion, and a calibration loop updates comments' populations that contribute to differences between the generated and real thread distributions. We evaluate CARD on real Reddit credit card discussions using lexical, semantic, behavioral, and structural metrics. CARD matches the distributions of real credit card discussions better than simulation baselines across multiple LLMs and also demonstrates smaller effect sizes and distribution distances across metrics. These results show that structured planning and targeted revision can generate the realism of simulated credit card discussions.

Perceptual narrowing---the developmental loss of non-native phoneme discrimination in the first year of life \citep{werker1984}---is a canonical developmental finding, yet \emph{what learning objective produces it} remains open. We train a $\sim$7,M-parameter Transformer encoder on child-directed and read speech and evaluate phoneme ABX in English, French, and Mandarin over ten seeds, the seed as the unit of replication. Six results. \textbf{(1)}~The objective sets the direction of cross-lingual transfer: reconstruction (masked mel-prediction) degrades non-native discrimination, prediction (frame-contrastive) improves it---a same-encoder, same-data gap of $+0.051$ in first-layer Mandarin ABX ($p=3\times10^{-8}$), unanimous in sign across twenty runs. \textbf{(2)}~That decline combines a large arm-intrinsic difficulty gradient with a smaller language-specialization effect (matched vs.\ mismatched $+0.022$, $p=10^{-4}$, all four layers). \textbf{(3)}~Against a language-symmetric raw-mel floor, reconstruction pushes the first layer \emph{below} the discriminability of its input; prediction pushes it \emph{above}. \textbf{(4)}~Read speech gives a $3.6\times$ steeper non-native decline than child-directed speech. \textbf{(5)}~The customary three-seed budget cannot see this reliably: an effect unambiguous at ten seeds is called significant by as few as 70% of three-seed subsets. \textbf{(6)}~Six objective configurations---sharpening, compression, consolidation, their composition, and word-level semantic grounding in two forms---fail to produce the full developmental signature (native improves \emph{and} non-native declines): a single objective moves both languages the same way because it acts on a shared representation. We conclude that the objective, not the architecture, is the first-order determinant of narrowing-shaped representational change.

Synthetic data is widely used to train large language models because it is inexpensive to generate and easy to control. As models are increasingly deployed as agents, synthetic trajectories are likely to become an important source of training data for agentic behavior. We investigate the effects of training on synthetic agentic trajectories containing adversarial interactions, including actions such as terminating another agents process, lowering its scheduling priority, or accessing resources without authorization. We finetune Llama 3.3 70B Instruct on these trajectories, generated to approximate reinforcement learning rollouts, and evaluate the resulting models on Anthropics Agentic Misalignment suite and Apollos in context scheming scenarios. Finetuning on these trajectories consistently increases misaligned behavior. Leaking rises by roughly a factor of five over the baseline, 4.6% to 24.9%. This increase survives the removal of every adversarial action from the trajectories. Finetuning on structurally comparable trajectories generated benign from the start produce a substantially smaller effect, 15.5%. These results indicate that the misaligned disposition is introduced during the generation process and encoded diffusely throughout the trajectory, rather than being localized to the harmful actions themselves. The effect also depends on the generating model. Benign trajectories produced by Gemini 2.5 Flash induce slightly higher leaking rates than trajectories generated from identical tasks by Claude 3.7 Sonnet. In contrast, broad safety benchmarks degrade similarly across all finetuned models and therefore fail to distinguish these effects. Our results suggest that action level filtering is insufficient to ensure the safety of synthetic agentic training data and that dispositions introduced by the generating model can survive semantic inspection.

We introduce CAFE (Compound-AI Factorial Evaluation), an open-source platform that brings design of experiments to the evaluation of compound AI systems (CAIS). Such systems expose many interchangeable choices - e.g. which retriever, model, or prompt - and practitioners rarely know which of them most affects answer quality. With CAFE, a practitioner registers each swappable component of a pipeline as a factor to build a factorial design over the chosen factors, run the resulting configurations, and score the answers on a shared rubric using a configurable LLM judge together with human raters. From these ratings it attributes answer-quality variance to the components and their interactions with mixed-effects models and reports effect sizes, significance, the best configuration, cost and latency trade-offs, and judge-human reliability. Whereas existing tools mostly either search for a good configuration or score outputs in isolation, CAFE also explains which component drives quality and whether an observed difference is significant. We validate CAFE on a retrieval-augmented question-answering (QA) pipeline over the HotpotQA benchmark dataset, where it recovers planted factor effects and stays calibrated under a permutation null. CAFE is released as a Python package and as a Web application.

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

Improvements in the technical performance of human--robot interaction (HRI) systems do not automatically translate into differences that human users can detect during live interaction. This paper investigates whether a 15 percentage point gain in end-to-end task success (from 75% in a multimodal baseline system to 90% in an improved configuration identified through a prior ablation study) is sufficient to produce consistent and measurable differences in user perception. The baseline system combines Whisper for speech recognition, Florence-2 for open-vocabulary object detection, LLaMA 3.1 for action extraction, and an interval Type-2 fuzzy logic controller for motion execution. The improved configuration replaces the perception and language modules with Grounding DINO + SAM and Qwen 3.5 9B, respectively, while retaining the same controller. A within-subject user study with 24 participants compared both systems on the same tabletop object-grasping task. After interacting with each configuration, participants rated perceived speed, reliability, and overall competence and fluency on a 7-point Likert scale. Results show that 17 out of 24 participants (70.83%) preferred the improved system (exact binomial test, p = 0.043, h = 0.43), and all three perceptual constructs were rated significantly higher for the improved configuration after Holm correction, with large to very large effect sizes (p < 0.001). These findings confirm that the identified technical improvements are perceptible to users in direct interaction and underscore the importance of complementing benchmark evaluation with user-centred evidence when assessing robotic manipulation pipelines.

Can a statistically significant, large-effect-size finding in computational social science be entirely an artifact of the measurement instrument? We present a case where the answer appears to be yes. Analyzing 85 interviews across four public intellectuals (2016--2026), we find a robust negative-affect/emphatic-certainty lexical co-occurrence pattern under keyword-based scoring ($r = 0.72$--$0.93$, $p < 0.01$ for all four speakers). Replacing keyword counting with LLM-based zero-shot semantic classification on the complete diarized corpus (32,625 sentences) dramatically reduces this correlation: Dalio's $r = 0.851$ drops to $r = 0.206$, with two speakers showing negative $r(\text{neg}, \text{emphatic})$ and one showing null. In contrast, the LLM reveals a strong negative-hedging coupling across speakers -- Rogoff's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.875$ ($p = 0.001$) and Zeihan's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.722$ ($p = 0.008$) -- consistent with the conventional expectation that pessimistic discourse attracts hedging, not certainty. Sentence-level error analysis traces this discrepancy to three structural failure modes in keyword lexicons -- syntactic blindness, polysemy blindness, and categorical absence -- illustrated through cases where keyword counting inverts semantic meaning (e.g., ''never absolutely totally confident'' scored as high-certainty). We argue that keyword lexicons measure a universal lexical co-occurrence tendency -- negative discourse naturally attracts emphatic vocabulary -- that is orthogonal to, and can systematically invert, rhetorical stance. Treating keyword counts as measurements of epistemic certainty is a category error: a finding that appears to be about a speaker's psychology may be entirely about the counting of words.

DiLoCo-style training reduces communication by letting learner islands train locally before occasional outer synchronization, making it attractive for fragmented industrial AI fleets where training shares hardware with latency-sensitive serving. The question for such fleets is when an outer merge is worth its system cost, and whether choosing \emph{which} windows to defer matters at all. Existing scheduling studies evaluate workload-aware policies against fixed-period baselines, but most omit the control that isolates timing from budget: matched random deferral, which inherits the controller's synchronization budget but is not itself deployable. This omission is consequential: across controlled stress tests and real vLLM sidecar replays, matched random ties or beats every forecast-free policy we test, so gains reported against weaker baselines cannot be attributed to window choice. We fill this gap with Workload-Aware DiLoCo (WA-DiLoCo), a score-based controller that weighs learner progress against fleet pressure, and a calibration protocol that determines when matched random can be beaten, then demonstrate that it can. In the bursty regime where calibration exposes request-overlap structure, adding a one-step EWMA burst forecast to the online controller beats matched random in real vLLM sidecar replay, reducing SLO violations from 6.54% to 5.09% (8 of 10 seeds, $p=0.021$); offline Calibrated-WA, a non-deployable bound, shows the remaining headroom at 4.45% versus 6.26%. The deployable lesson remains the protocol: report real-sidecar effect-size transfer, a no-sync load match, and a matched-random envelope before claiming serving-SLO improvement.

There exist numerous tutor training platforms. However, few provide AI-driven training and evaluation for human tutors based on real-life performance. We present an AI-driven system that assesses both open responses during training and authentic real-life tutoring. Unlike platforms that only assess learning through online training or simulations, our system utilizes Generative AI (Gemini-2.5-pro) to analyze transcriptions of authentic tutoring, measuring the transfer of tutor skills to real-life application. Human tutors instructing students remotely in math (N=86) completed six scenario-based lessons, averaging a significant 7.4% learning gain. Using mixed-effects models across 405 session-to-lesson pairs, we found that training performance significantly predicted real-life transcript scores with an effect size of 0.25 SD. Model comparison (AIC/BIC) indicated averaging open response and multiple choice performance during training predicted real-life tutor performance best, although open responses were comparatively more predictive. Exploratory analysis showed that after training, tutors were significantly more likely to encounter pedagogical opportunities to apply their skills (61.1% to 68.9%) and demonstrated higher execution quality within those opportunities (65.5% to 68.1%). Interrupted time series analysis suggested that these tutor improvements were part of a gradual trend over time rather than an immediate intervention effect of training. We illustrate an AI-driven method to link tutor training with real-life assessment. In doing so, we contribute open datasets, AI prompts, and scoring rubrics to support transparency and reproducibility.

ZIVARI-TLBO is a grouped Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) method that augments an existing population-state controller with a fixed inter-group evaluated-elite relay. At each scheduled event, every group offers its already evaluated elite to the next group in a fixed ring; the elite replaces the receiver's worst eligible learner only when its stored objective value is better. Because the exact relay copies an already evaluated solution and its stored fitness, it requires no additional objective-function calls. The frozen gts-v4-cm-fixed implementation is evaluated under equal 10,000-evaluation budgets on eight classical functions at dimensions 10, 30, 50, and 100, with 30 matched seeds, and on five constrained engineering problems. A direct ablation against the same grouped landscape-aware controller without relay records 728/11/221 wins/ties/losses and a rank-biserial effect size of 0.624 across dimensions. In an eight-method multidimensional comparison, WOA obtains the best average rank (2.914) and ZIVARI-TLBO ranks second (3.382); ZIVARI-TLBO significantly outperforms TLBO, MCTLBO, DE, PSO, and GWO, loses significantly to WOA, and is not significantly different from HHO after Holm adjustment. Feasibility-aware engineering results are mixed and sensitive to the current static-penalty formulation. The evidence supports a scoped relay contribution and budget-consistent information-sharing mechanism, but not universal state-of-the-art, global-convergence, engineering-dominance, or CEC superiority claims.

Reproducibility in the social and behavioral sciences is typically evaluated by independent researchers who reanalyze the original data to assess whether the published findings can be recovered. However, such approaches are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can automate reproducibility assessments. Using N = 180 published studies with predefined claims from the behavioral and social sciences, we compare LLM-generated analyses with the original findings. For 11 studies, the LLM pipeline could not produce a viable effect size estimate. For the remaining studies, the LLM reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 80% of cases, and recovered the original effect sizes (using a +/-0.05 tolerance in Cohen's d) in 24% of studies. In a subset with human reanalyses, the LLM reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 95% of studies, similar to human reanalysts (83%), and the LLM recovered the original effect sizes using a +/-0.05 tolerance in 40% of studies, again broadly similar to human reanalysts (28%). Given the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs, the findings show that LLMs can support systematic audits of empirical results rather than substitute expert judgment. As such, LLMs can serve as a scalable screening tool to improve the rigor and reproducibility in empirical research.

This study examines training dynamics in a small Llama-style language model trained under a fixed, compute-constrained token budget. Rather than evaluating efficiency solely through endpoint performance, the study uses a quantitative experimental repeated measures design to analyze how validation loss, validation perplexity, rolling volatility, backslide behavior, spike behavior, and between-seed variability change across token-based training intervals. Six independent training runs were conducted on a 4.26-million-parameter model using the TinyStories corpus, CPU-based full-precision training, and a target budget of approximately 20 million cumulative training tokens. Metrics were collected across 21 intervals, producing 126 seed-by-interval observations. Repeated measures ANOVA showed statistically significant interval effects for validation loss, validation perplexity, and rolling volatility. Descriptive trajectories revealed rapid early improvement followed by non-monotonic degradation during later training intervals. Mean validation loss decreased from 8.3552 at initialization to 2.7996 near 4 million tokens, but increased to 3.9010 by the final checkpoint. Validation perplexity followed the same pattern, falling sharply early in training before rising later. Derived telemetry further showed recurrent validation-loss backslides and no interval-summary evidence of a stable phase under the predefined criteria. These findings suggest that compute-aware language model evaluation should examine training trajectories rather than endpoint metrics alone. In constrained compute settings, additional token exposure may increase computational cost without producing proportional generalization gains, and interval-level telemetry can reveal instability, regression, and diminishing returns that final metrics may obscure.

Persistence diagrams are common representations in topological data analysis, but they do not naturally live in a vector space, and the statistical tools developed for comparing them have largely evolved separately from those used for downstream prediction. We introduce STRAND (Survival Topological Representation ANalysis of Diagrams), which treats (collections of) PDs as survival data: each topological feature with persistence value $p = d - b$ is a fully observed time-to-event, and the persistence survival function $S(t) = \mathbb{P}(p > t)$ is the central object for comparing diagrams. From this single representation we derive (i) a non-parametric two-sample test with calibrated Type I error and high power from a small number of diagrams; (ii) interpretable effect sizes; and (iii) a 1-Wasserstein-stable feature vector for downstream machine learning. We validate calibration and power on synthetic manifolds with controlled topology, demonstrate competitive vectorisation across 14 graph and 3D point cloud benchmarks, and apply the method to study functional brain connectivity in fMRI/neuroscience data. To our knowledge, STRAND is the first method to provide hypothesis testing and vectorisation for persistence diagrams from a single coherent and interpretable representation.

We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Zero-shot LLMs regularly inflate effect sizes relative to human annotations, while fine-tuning often attenuates them back toward the human scale. Our results have implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses: they may be reliable for recovering the presence and direction of effects on the partisan topics, but not their magnitude, leading to over- or under-prediction of some ideology given particular topics.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by challenges in communication and behavior. This study examines the relationship between ethnicity and ASD traits, along with behavioural scores, sex and neonatal jaundice across three ethnic groups: White Europeans, Asians, and Middle Eastern individuals. We perform a logistic regression and show that ethnicity has a significant effect on incidence of ASD. White Europeans are 81% increased risk of ASD and Middle Easterners are at 79% reduced risk of ASD compared to Asians. We also confirm earlier studied which show that neonatal jaundice is a significant predictor of ASD, while male children are at much higher risk of ASD compared to female children. These results suggest the need for diagnostic frameworks and interventions that account for ethnic in the presentation and assessment of ASD traits

The same prompt -- "best CRM software" -- reaches AI assistants from buyers in widely different contexts: a solo founder, an enterprise VP, a UK SMB owner. We audit how strongly that contextual variation reshapes which brands the model recommends. The audit samples 2,000 runs over a design space of 10 personas x 8 prompts x 3 model configurations x N=10 reps, with the two OpenAI cells at full 8-prompt coverage and the Anthropic sonnet-4.6 / low cell at 4-prompt coverage. Prefixing the user message with a persona drops the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) by Delta = -0.12 to -0.20 relative to a same-persona baseline (clustered 95% CIs exclude zero on all three measured cells; the sonnet cell's CI rests on only 4 prompt clusters and is correspondingly wider). The effect is sharply prominence-stratified: category leaders are persona-resistant (~80% same-brand consistency across personas), but mid-market brands swap up to 75% of the recommendation set as the persona changes. The Anthropic model shows a larger point-estimate effect than the OpenAI configurations, though clustered CIs overlap for the closer contrast (sonnet vs. OpenAI/high); the asymmetry is consistent with Anthropic's more retrieval-unattributed generation route (43-52% recommendations without observed retrieval-layer evidence, vs OpenAI's 8-29%, documented in Jack 2026). Any measurement of AI brand perception must condition on the buyer persona supplying the query: the same prompt produces materially different recommendation sets depending on who the model thinks is asking, and a measurement protocol that aggregates across personas systematically obscures that variation. The effect concentrates at mid-market and is largest on the most priors-reliant generation route in our audit, consistent with persona responsiveness growing as models lean more on training-data priors and richer context integration.

Randomized controlled trials are a cornerstone of medicine and the social sciences as they enable reliable estimates of causal effects. However, they are costly and time-consuming to conduct, motivating interest in predicting causal effects from existing experimental evidence. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on knowledge-intensive tasks, raising the question of whether these models can be used for forecasting causal effect sizes. To investigate this, we introduce Query2Effect, a new large-scale benchmark consisting of more than 72,000 natural language questions aligned with experiment descriptions, created to simulate realistic information-seeking scenarios by varying query specificity along dimensions of implicitness, abstraction, and ambiguity. We then propose a two-step framework that first generates a synthetic structured representation of a query before predicting effect size using a supervised encoder model. Experiments show that finetuning plays a crucial role in improving prediction performance, with absolute error reducing by -27% up to -71% compared to prompted out-of-the-box LLMs, and that our two-step framework is beneficial for out-of-domain generalization, highlighting the benefits of separating semantic interpretation from numerical effect estimation.

This is a planning-method note with an unpaired pilot audit. We adapt the classical paired-binary sample-size calculation (Miettinen, 1968) to quantization benchmarks, giving a conservative minimum detectable effect (MDE) bound $δ^{*} \le (z_{1-α/2}+z_{1-β})\sqrt{ρ_d/m}$ in the paired item count $m$ and the FP16-NF4 disagreement rate $ρ_d$. The bound turns "how reliable is my quantization claim?" into a one-line budget a benchmark designer can commit to before running. We illustrate the bound on four models and four benchmarks ($k=5$ splits of $n=100$), and add a parallel MMLU prompt-template study to put the bound's quantization-noise scale alongside the prompt-noise scale. Assuming $ρ_d=0.10$ (an unmeasured planning value), all observed NF4-FP16 deltas fall below the implied MDE, and most cross-split SDs lie within $\pm 1.5$ pp of the binomial reference $\sqrt{p(1-p)/n}$, so much of the variance reported as "benchmark unreliability" on $n=100$ subsamples is binomial sampling noise. The single borderline cell (OPT-WinoGrande, $|Δ|=3.2$ pp) is below the implied MDE at $ρ_d=0.10$ but above it at $ρ_d=0.05$, illustrating the planning trade-off the bound makes explicit. On MMLU, prompt-template ranges of 2-10 pp meet or exceed the largest observed quantization delta (3.2 pp), so a quantization audit that does not first fix the prompt template absorbs template variance into its noise floor. We complement the bound with a five-line pre-registration template.

Cognitive distortions, distorted patterns of thinking, have been increasingly studied in computational mental health research. Although they are related to many, if not all, mental health disorders, most existing studies focus primarily on depression. In this work, we explore distortion profiles across multiple mental health conditions. We analyzed a large Reddit-based dataset containing posts from nine self-reported mental health groups as well as a control group using both an n-gram-based method and a fine-tuned transformer model for detecting cognitive distortions. Mental health groups, both when pooled together and when examined individually, showed higher prevalence of cognitive distortions compared to the control group, with the effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. When comparing distortion profiles across conditions, we observed largely similar patterns, although some groups exhibited overall higher levels of distortions than others. These findings suggest that relatively simple lexical approaches can be useful for exploratory analyses of group-level trends in large-scale mental health text data.

Hippocampal subfield segmentation requires high-resolution T2w turbo spin echo (TSE) MRI, yet this sequence is susceptible to motion artifacts, leading to substantial data loss. We developed a conditional generative model (MRecover) that synthesizes routinely acquired T1w images to create TSE images with autoregressive slice conditioning for volumetric consistency. Trained on 7T MRI data (n=577), the model achieved high in-domain fidelity (n=148, SSIM=0.84, FSIM=0.94) and generalized well to out-of-domain 3T data: subfield volumes from synthesized and the as-acquired images closely matched: (n=416, r=0.87-0.97) and yielded 31.8% more analyzable subjects in the motion-affected ADNI3 dataset after quality control (593 vs 450). The synthesized images also achieved larger effect sizes due to increasing the sample size for diagnostic group differences in hippocampal subfield atrophy (whole hippocampus $ε^2$= 0.121-0.100 vs. 0.086-0.062, left-right hemispheres). Project page: https://jinghangli98.github.io/MRecover/

Gap-closing rate and visual looming swap discriminative dominance depending on deceleration intensity - a finding that reconciles a long-standing conflict in the car-following literature and challenges spacing-centered assumptions in traditional driver behavior models. This study presents a two-stage analytical framework that distinguishes between information availability (kinematic variables measurable in the environment) and information utilization (variables that demonstrably separate driver behavioral patterns), applied to 1,060,119 valid car-following observations from the NGSIM trajectory dataset (2,932 vehicles). Six kinematic features are extracted, and deceleration events are detected under two threshold conditions (-0.5 m/s^2 and -0.3 m/s^2). K-means clustering identifies behavioral modes, and one-way ANOVA with eta-squared effect sizes ranks each feature's discriminative power. Three key findings emerge: (1) threshold selection fundamentally shapes behavioral inference - the stricter threshold yields three interpretable modes while the permissive threshold collapses these to two; (2) hard braking prioritizes gap-closing rate (eta^2 = 0.715) while moderate braking emphasizes visual looming (eta^2 = 0.574); and (3) spacing headway is negligible (eta^2 <= 0.014) across both thresholds. These findings provide empirically grounded candidates for perceptual cue prioritization and have direct implications for ADAS warning system design and autonomous vehicle control.

We adapted the Reliable Change Index (RCI; Jacobson and Truax, 1991) from clinical psychology to item-level LLM version comparison on 2,000 MMLU-Pro items (K=10 samples at T=0.7). Two within-family pairs were tested: Llama 3 to 3.1 (+1.6 points) and Qwen 2.5 to 3 (+2.8 points). On the full benchmark, most items showed no reliable change (79% and 72%). However, over half the items were floor/ceiling. Among analysable items, change was bidirectional with large effect sizes: 34% improved and 28% deteriorated for Llama; 47% improved and 39% deteriorated for Qwen (median |delta p| = 0.50 and 0.90). Churn was asymmetric by difficulty: low-accuracy items improved, high-accuracy items deteriorated. Domain-level decomposition revealed family-specific reversals: Llama lost physics while Qwen lost law. Greedy single-shot evaluation missed 42% of reliably changed items and falsely flagged 25% of unchanged items. The aggregate accuracy gain is the net residual of opposing item-level movements. We recommend reporting churn rate alongside aggregate accuracy.

Motivated by loss of control risks from misaligned AI systems, we develop and apply methods for measuring language models' propensity for unsanctioned behaviour. We contribute three methodological improvements: analysing effects of changes to environmental factors on behaviour, quantifying effect sizes via Bayesian generalised linear models, and taking explicit measures against circular analysis. We apply the methodology to measure the effects of 12 environmental factors (6 strategic in nature, 6 non-strategic) and thus the extent to which behaviour is explained by strategic aspects of the environment, a question relevant to risks from misalignment. Across 23 language models and 11 evaluation environments, we find approximately equal contributions from strategic and non-strategic factors for explaining behaviour, do not find strategic factors becoming more or less influential as capabilities improve, and find some evidence for a trend for increased sensitivity to goal conflicts. Finally, we highlight a key direction for future propensity research: the development of theoretical frameworks and cognitive models of AI decision-making into empirically testable forms.