Outcome

We introduce interaction SSD, an extension of Supervised Semantic Differential that models how semantic meaning varies across moderators such as groups, traits, or conditions making this variation testable and interpretable. The method estimates a main semantic gradient, an interaction gradient, and conditional gradients, all interpretable through standard SSD tools. We illustrate it on the UC Berkeley Measuring Hate Speech corpus, testing whether annotator racial identity moderates hate-speech judgments of comments targeting people of color. The interaction model detects a significant moderation effect: the shared gradient contrasts dehumanizing hostility with counter-speech, while the interaction gradient reveals smaller group-linked differences in which semantic cues predict hate-speech ratings. Interaction SSD makes moderated meaning-outcome relationships statistically testable and interpretable.

Computing legal indicators from normative texts is a key task in legal monitoring and policy evaluation, but presents significant challenges due to the complexity, scale, and interpretive nature of legal language, as well as the variability in available document quality. Existing natural language processing techniques and generative models can assist in legal analysis, but often suffer from high risk of hallucinations and lack the interpretability and evidence grounding required for reliable indicator computation. This paper presents N2I-RAG (From Norms to Indicators), an agentic retrieval-augmented generation framework designed to automate the computation of legal indicators in a transparent and traceable way. We integrate adaptive retrieval, llm-based agents, and validation mechanisms in a modular pipeline, where each component performs a defined role in filtering, retrieving, and assessing evidence, and in producing binary legal outcomes linked to identifiable legal provisions. The framework emphasizes traceability by requiring explicit explanations of intermediate decisions and final indicator assignments. We evaluate N2I-RAG using an in-house constructed French marine environmental law corpus that includes both scanned and digital sources. Comparative experiments with multiple language model families demonstrate that the proposed approach consistently outperforms baseline systems, and generalizes well when tested on 2 different bans. The results indicate that agentic retrieval-augmented generation can bridge open-text legal language and standardized indicator computation, offering a foundation for transparent and scalable legal observatories.

Benchmarks are necessary for healthcare evaluation, but are not sufficient for predicting deployment performance. Our position is that the evaluation--deployment gap arises not because of poorly designed benchmarks, but from implicit assumptions about how users interact with models that cannot be surfaced from benchmarks alone. To make this precise, we propose a classification of assumptions into two categories: task, which can be tested from conversation data alone, and outcome, which requires outcome data and behavioral studies for testing. Critically, outcome assumptions depend on human behavior, something that even well-designed benchmarks cannot directly observe. To demonstrate the operationality of this framework, we retrospectively analyze a healthcare RCT as a case study and find that the gap naturally separates into task and outcome gaps of roughly equal size. To address this, we make two contributions: first, we propose BenchmarkCards, an artifact that documents assumptions, and second, we propose staged evaluation, a procedure that systematically tests assumptions and evaluates performance.

Outcome-only evaluation can certify economically unsafe agents: a policy can hit a business KPI while violating deployable behavioral discipline. In hotel pricing with hidden competitor state, a learner can achieve plausible revenue per available room while failing to preserve the rate discipline of a rule-based revenue-management competitor. We introduce discipline stability, a trace-based evaluation paradigm: define the benchmark behavior, restrict observations to the deployment regime, induce trace diagnostics from failure, separate mechanisms with ablations, and test transfer and deployment. Across a two-hotel benchmark and a compact hidden-budget bidding task, reward-only PPO variants miss trace alignment; revealing hidden state reduces label uncertainty; deterministic copy collapses uncertainty; and trace-prior or corrected history policies better preserve price or bid distributions. Pure behavior cloning is nearly enough for symmetric imitation, while Trace-Prior RL adds bounded adaptation under capacity asymmetry. The contribution is an evaluation and benchmark paradigm, not a new optimizer or a universal claim about MARL

Adaptive experimentation enables efficient estimation of causal effects, but existing methods are not designed for survival data with censoring, where event times are only partially observed (e.g., overall survival in cancer trials but with dropout). In this paper, we develop a novel framework for adaptive experimentation to estimate causal effects under right censoring. For this, we derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the average survival effect curve as a function of the treatment allocation policy and thereby obtain a closed-form efficiency-optimal allocation policy. The policy generalizes classical Neyman allocation to survival settings by prioritizing patient strata where both event and censoring dynamics induce high uncertainty. Building on this, we propose the Adaptive Survival Estimator (ASE), an adaptive framework that learns the allocation policy and estimates the average survival effect curve sequentially. Our framework has three main benefits: (i) it accommodates arbitrary machine learning models for nuisance estimation; (ii) it is guided by a closed-form efficiency-optimal allocation policy; and (iii) it admits strong theoretical guarantees, including asymptotic normality via a martingale central limit theorem. We demonstrate our framework across various numerical experiments to show consistent efficiency gains over uniform randomization and censoring-agnostic baselines.

Reinforcement learning (RL) allows vision-language-action (VLA) policies to generalize beyond their training distribution by optimizing directly for task success, but post-training is computationally expensive. A natural response has been to speed rollout collection through faster simulators and world models. In GRPO-based VLA RL, we find that the dominant cost lies elsewhere: gradient computation accounts for approximately 78% of wall-clock time per step in our runs, while rollout collection accounts for only 21%. Gradient cost dominates because much of this computation is spent on phases that contribute little to learning. GRPO's learning signal is driven by advantage variance: only phases where successful and failed rollouts diverge produce learning signal. However, GRPO assigns the same advantage to every chunk in a rollout. As a result, actor-update compute is spent uniformly across the trajectory, including phases the policy already handles after pre-training and supervised fine-tuning. This paper presents Probabilistic Chunk Masking (PCM), a drop-in modification to GRPO that allocates gradient computation to a small, probabilistically selected subset of chunks per trajectory. PCM scores semantic phases using success-failure action variance, a rollout-derived proxy for per-phase gradient variance, and samples a fixed chunk budget with online-updated phase-level keep probabilities. We formalize per-phase gradient variance as the quantity determines where gradient computation is useful and show that success-failure action variance provides a measurable proxy for it. PCM requires no reward model or learned critic. On three LIBERO benchmarks, PCM matches the final success rate of standard GRPO while achieving 2.38 times wall-clock speedup, 4.8 times faster gradient updates, and 60% lower peak activation memory, while backpropagating through fewer than 20% of trajectory chunks.

LLM prompting is widely used for naturally stated tasks, yet it is unreliable it may succeed on a few test cases but fail at deployment time. We study performance prediction: given a program, either symbolic (e.g. Python) or a prompt executed on an LLM, and a few in-domain examples, predict its performance on unseen tasks from the same domain. We use a simple coin-flip model, treating each pass/fail program execution as a Bernoulli random variable, whose success probability is the programs unknown performance. In this model, performance depends entirely on: 1) the observed execution outcomes on test cases, and 2) a prior over performances. We compile empirical performance priors from a corpus of diverse programs and tasks, and find that performance for symbolic programs (e.g., Python) are all or nothing, while prompt programs have a diffuse prior with many nearly-correct programs. This difference explains why a few passing tests can certify symbolic programs but not prompt programs. Building on this insight, we develop RAP (Retrieved Approximate Prior), which retrieves similar tasks and prompt programs from an existing corpus to construct a proxy prior, which is then used to predict performance. We show RAP achieves solid performances.

Background: Abilities for effective self-regulated learning (SRL) are critical for lifelong learning, particularly during adolescence when these skills consolidate and strongly influence future learning. Their importance has grown with the rise of online and blended education. Yet, little is known about how secondary school students self-regulate in online environments, how their SRL processes and strategies evolve, or how they affect outcomes. In secondary education, understanding these processes can reveal patterns and indicators of learning success, informing the design of online support mechanisms. Evidence from repeated-measures designs remains scarce. Objectives: This study aims to examine how secondary school students enact SRL strategies during online essay writing, how these strategies change over time, and how they relate to learning outcomes. Methods: We analysed metacognition-related trace data collected from secondary students during a two-wave online essay-writing task conducted one week apart in two Colombian schools (N = 93 for session 1, N = 95 for session 2) via a digital learning platform. Using a combination of process mining and unsupervised machine learning techniques, we identified dominant SRL strategies grounded in established SRL processes and examined their stability and association with learning outcomes. Results and conclusions: Three dominant SRL strategies were identified. Results showed variability: many students remained in or shifted to Read first, write next, while none used Write intensively, read selectively in session 2. Although less common, latter strategy was positively associated with learning outcomes.

The rise of agentic AI is reshaping software engineering in two intertwined directions: agents are increasingly applied to support software engineering tasks, and Agentic AI systems themselves are complex systems that require re-thinking currently established software engineering practices. To chart a coherent research agenda covering the two directions, we organized the A2SE seminar in Rio de Janeiro, bringing together 18 experts from academia and industry. Through structured presentations, collaborative topic clustering, and focused group discussions, participants identified six thematic areas: Governance, Software Engineering for Agents, Agents for Software Architecture, Quality and Evaluation, Sustainability, and Code, and they prioritized short-term and long-term research directions for each. This paper presents the resulting community-driven, opinionated research agenda, offering the SE community a structured foundation for coordinating efforts at this critical juncture.

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by $0.81\%$, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by $38.7\%$, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by $4.59\%$, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

Long-horizon LLM agents depend on intermediate information-gathering turns, yet training feedback is usually observed only at the final answer, because process-level rewards require high-quality human annotation. Existing turn-level shaping methods reward turns that increase the likelihood of a gold answer, but they require answer supervision or stable task-specific verifiers. Conversely, label-free RL methods extract self-signals from output distributions, but mainly at the answer or trajectory level and therefore cannot assign credit to intermediate turns. We propose Self-Induced Outcome Potential (SIOP), which treats semantic clusters of final answers as latent future outcome states for potential-based turn-level credit assignment. For each query, SIOP samples multiple rollouts, clusters final answers into semantic outcome modes, and builds a reliability-aware target distribution over these states. It then rewards turns for increasing posterior support for reliable future states using a tractable cluster-level approximation. The objective generalizes information-potential shaping from gold-answer supervision to settings without task-specific gold verifiers while avoiding the broadcasted rollout-level advantages used by standard GRPO. We formalize the framework, characterize its supervised gold-answer limit, and show that SIOP improves average performance over verifier-free outcome-level baselines on seven search-augmented agentic reasoning benchmarks while approaching a gold-supervised outcome baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/dl-m9/SIOP.git.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly changing how researchers in materials science and chemistry discover, organize, and act on scientific knowledge. This paper analyzes a broad set of community-developed LLM applications in an effort to identify emerging patterns in how these systems can be used across the scientific research lifecycle. We organize the projects into two complementary categories: Knowledge Infrastructure, systems that structure, retrieve, synthesize, and validate scientific information; and Action Systems, systems that execute, coordinate, or automate scientific work across computational and experimental environments. The submissions reveal a shift from single-purpose LLM tools toward integrated, multi-agent workflows that combine retrieval, reasoning, tool use, and domain-specific validation. Prominent themes include retrieval-augmented generation as grounding infrastructure, persistent structured knowledge representations, multimodal and multilingual scientific inputs, and early progress toward laboratory-integrated closed-loop systems. Together, these results suggest that LLMs are evolving from general-purpose assistants into composable infrastructure for scientific reasoning and action. This work provides a community snapshot of that transition and a practical taxonomy for understanding emerging LLM-enabled workflows in materials science and chemistry.

Personas are often employed to guide large language model agents, yet their effectiveness in shaping strategic behavior in social dilemma settings remains uncertain. To address this, we examined the impact of persona prompts in an iterated Split or Steal game where persona-driven agents interacted with a Virtual Human (VH) controlled by a fixed prompt. Agents were instantiated from four open models (Ministral 3:3b, phi4:14b, Gemma3:12b, and Gemma4:e4b) at two temperature settings (0.3 and 0.7) and deterministic decision with zero temperature, while the VH was powered by GPT 4.1 mini. Across 160 sessions of 15 rounds each conducted in European Portuguese, mutual Split outcomes dominated (roughly 74 percent of rounds), with exploitation occurring in fewer than 11 percent of rounds. Model choice significantly influenced behavior: phi4 and Ministral 3:3b remained consistently cooperative across temperatures, whereas Gemma3:12b and Gemma4:e4b exhibited more varied strategies and outcomes. Analyses based on Big Five personality traits indicated that Prosocial and Principled personas were most consistently cooperative, while Analytical personas were more likely to exploit the VH. Topic analysis revealed that friendship-related dialogue aligns with Split decisions, whereas money and vengeance-related content is more prevalent in Steal outcomes; sentiment labels were predominantly neutral or happy and provided limited additional explanatory value. These findings characterize the interaction between persona prompts and model differences in repeated trust games and serve as a baseline for planned virtual reality studies involving human participants interacting with an embodied VH.

Middle school is a key window for building core academic skills and the learning routines students carry into later grades, yet many students still fall behind because help is often limited and comes too late, after they have already been stuck for a while. Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are now standard infrastructure for distributing materials, collecting work, assessing students' tasks, and recording grades, but in most deployments they still behave more like workflow tools than instructional supports. The result is the usual bottleneck: students keep practicing through confusion, teachers triage questions, and feedback that could have corrected the misunderstanding arrives after the misconception has already hardened. To address this gap, we propose an AI-integrated LMS for middle school instruction, paired with a longitudinal study design to test whether sustained, bounded AI support changes outcomes through high school and into post-high school pathways. The proposed platform adds policy-gated AI assistance to everyday coursework, delivering formative feedback and hinting, recommending spaced review and adaptive practice based on mastery, and providing teacher-facing dashboards that summarize misconception patterns and flag sustained struggle. Because the platform is intended for minors, the design is privacy-first, using data minimization, role-based access control, age-appropriate response constraints, and auditable logs of AI interactions. Beyond short-term performance, the evaluation plan links fine-grained learning traces (attempts, revisions, help-seeking, and pacing) to institutional outcomes where feasible, so we can separate tool adoption effects from longer-run changes in learning trajectories.

Expectations about the support of artificial intelligence (AI) may influence interaction outcomes similar to placebos. Such expectations may result from AI washing, a practice of overstating a system's AI capabilities when actual functionality is limited. For example, some computer mice are marketed as "AI-assisted" despite lacking AI in core functions. In a within-subjects study, 28 participants completed Fitts' Law tasks with a computer mouse under three conditions: no support, supposed predictive AI support, and supposed biosignal-enhanced AI support. Objective Fitts' Law performance indicators and subjective performance expectations, perceived workload, and perceived usability were measured. Compared to baseline, participants expected significantly improved performance in placebo conditions. However, these expectations did not translate into differences in objective or subjective assessments. This paper contributes evidence that AI washing inflates user expectations without altering actual interaction outcomes, highlighting a critical transparency issue. By exposing how deceptive AI marketing can shape user expectations, we underscore the need for accountability in AI product claims. Further, we establish Fitts' Law as a rigorous methodological lens for auditing AI-labelled input devices.

Safety-critical prediction systems, such as autonomous vehicles, weather forecasters, and medical monitors, commonly rely on probabilistic forecasters. These forecasters make predictions about possible future outcomes, and their quality and robustness needs to be validated and certified. Often, only accuracy -- the mean of the predictions -- is evaluated against true outcomes. However, for safety-critical scenarios and decision making under uncertainty, the full distributional properties of the forecasts should be checked: do the observed prediction errors actually follow the forecasted probability distributions? To this end, we introduce a framework for calibration checks: statistical tests that validate distributional properties of forecasts when measured over many samples. In order to support ease-of-use in real-world operations, these checks produce a single accept/reject decision for data collected from a forecaster. This contrasts typical calibration calculations which produce one or multiple continuous calibration scores and require expertise to implement in a validation workflow. We further support operationalization by introducing modifications to calibration testing that (a) reject only overconfident predictions, allowing for pessimistic or cautious predictions in safety-critical settings, and (b) tolerate small, operationally acceptable deviations even for large numbers of validation samples. We organize the calibration checking process into a modular pipeline comprising four steps: (i) the data model, (ii) the chosen metric, (iii) the hypothesis formulation, and (iv) the testing procedure. Each step consists of independently swappable components, thereby supporting a large variety of possible use-cases and trade-offs. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework on two complementary example problems, weather forecasting and robot pose estimation.

This study applied the Apriori algorithm to analyze behavioral interaction patterns associated with learned helplessness (LH) in mathematics tutoring system logs. Interaction data were examined across three dimensions: LH level (low vs. high), system-based intervention (with vs. without), and problem-solving outcomes (solved vs. unsolved). The analysis of the complete dataset showed that skipping problems without using hints was the most frequent pattern linked to unsolved outcomes, while persistence behaviors such as not skipping were less dominant overall. Comparisons by LH level showed that low-LH students had stronger links between problem solving and not skipping, as well as positive associations between hint use and solved outcomes. High-LH students showed more avoidance patterns, with skipping strongly tied to unsolved outcomes. In the comparison of system-based intervention conditions, students without intervention had the highest lift for persistence-success links, while the with-intervention group had stronger patterns involving skipping behaviors leading to unsolved outcomes. Outcome-specific analysis showed that not skipping was consistently associated with solved problems across all groups, while skipping without hints predicted unsolved outcomes. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.

Chronic osteomyelitis presents substantial prognostic challenges due to its high recurrence risk and complex postoperative recovery trajectories. Traditional assessment often relies on manual scoring systems, which limit scalability, efficiency, and consistency in clinical practice. Furthermore, the heterogeneous nature of clinical data poses challenges for current multimodal learning approaches that require aligned inputs and large annotated datasets. In this work, we propose RAG4Outcome, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for prognostic prediction in chronic osteomyelitis. Our method integrates multimodal clinical data, including PET-CT imaging reports, structured surgical and diagnostic records, and unstructured follow-up notes, into a unified prediction pipeline. By combining a domain-specific retrieval corpus with expert-guided prompting, the framework enables more interpretable, evidence-grounded, and clinically reliable prognosis. Preliminary results on real-world cases demonstrate promising effectiveness and clinical alignment, highlighting the potential of RAG4Outcome for AI-assisted infection management and postoperative decision support.

Wrist function is essential in performing activities of daily living (ADLs). However, there is limited experimental evidence on the functional impact of wrist Abduction-Adduction (Ab-Ad) joint assistance in upper limb exoskeletons (ULEs) for rehabilitation. This study evaluates the effect of implementing an active wrist Ab-Ad joint in a five degree of freedom (DoF) ULE, EXOTIC2 exoskeleton, to support individuals with severe motor impairments. Methods: A compact, lightweight wrist module with tendon-driven abduction and spring-driven adduction was integrated into the EXOTIC exoskeleton. Eight adults with no motor disabilities completed drinking and scratching tasks under randomized wrist-enabled and wrist-locked conditions along with a preliminary feasibility test in one individual with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Kinematic and task performance metrics including wrist range of motion, task completion time, spillage and leveling metrics were assessed. Results: Implementing the wrist Ab-Ad DoF improved task success metrics. Spill incidence during the drinking task decreased from 56% to 3%, and leveling success for scratching task improved from 28% to 75%. Conclusion: Integrating wrist Ab-Ad assistance improved key functional task outcomes without increasing execution time. Significance: The study provides the experimental evidence that active wrist Ab-Ad control enhances task-level performance in exoskeleton-assisted ADLs.

Analyzing topics extracted from text data in relation to external outcomes is important across fields such as computational social science and organizational research. However, existing topic modeling methods struggle to simultaneously achieve interpretability, topic specificity (alignment with concrete actions or characteristics), and polarity stance consistency (absence of mixed positive and negative evaluations within a topic). Focusing on leadership analysis using corporate review data, this study proposes a method leveraging large language models to generate topics that satisfy these properties, along with an evaluation framework tailored to external outcome analysis. The framework explicitly incorporates topic specificity and polarity stance consistency as evaluation criteria and examines automated evaluation methods based on existing metrics. Using employee reviews from OpenWork, a major corporate review platform in Japan, the proposed method achieves improved interpretability, specificity, and polarity consistency compared to existing approaches. In analyses of external outcomes such as employee morale, it also produces topics with higher explanatory power. These results suggest that the proposed method and evaluation framework provide a generalized approach for topic analysis in applications involving external outcomes.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as protocols: structured multi-call procedures that spend additional computation to transform a baseline answer into a final one. These protocols are evaluated only by end-to-end accuracy, giving limited insight into when they help, when they hurt, and whether their behavior transfers under distribution shift or composition. We propose a paired-outcome measurement interface for auditing a single protocol step on exact-match tasks. For each instance, the interface records a baseline correctness bit $E_0\in\{0,1\}$ and a post-step correctness bit $E_1\in\{0,1\}$, separating correction ($E_0=0\to E_1=1$) from corruption ($E_0=1\to E_1=0$) through two rates: $c=\Pr(E_1=1\mid E_0=0)$ and $γ=\Pr(E_1=0\mid E_0=1)$. These rates predict accuracy changes and define a reusable empirical interface testable across seeds, mixtures, and pipelines. We identify three failure mechanisms. Under mixture shift, pooled estimates of $(c,γ)$ become biased when calibration and deployment mixtures differ; conditioning on a difficulty proxy restores stability without additional model calls. Under presentation contamination, selection protocols alter the interface through stable presentation artifacts when candidate content is fixed. Under state insufficiency, the correctness bit may not carry enough history for multi-step pipelines to compose predictably; a Markov factorization test identifies when composition is valid and where additional state is needed. When a protocol step passes these diagnostics, it becomes an auditable module: gated by estimated gain, conditioned on a difficulty proxy to correct mixture bias, and composed into multi-step pipelines with predictable accuracy. We demonstrate these ideas on synthetic mathematical tasks and on GSM8K, where the calibrated interface correctly predicts when protocol steps should be activated or suppressed.

Scientists have long sought to accurately predict outcomes of real-world events before they happen. Can AI systems do so more reliably? We study this question through clinical trial outcome prediction, a high-stakes open challenge even for domain experts. We introduce CT Open, an open-access, live platform that will run four challenge every year. Anyone can submit predictions for each challenge. CT Open evaluates those submissions on trials whose outcomes were not yet public at the time of submission but were made public afterwards. Determining if a trial's outcome is public on the internet before a certain date is surprisingly difficult. Outcomes posted on official registries may lag behind by years, while the first mention may appear in obscure articles. To address this, we propose a novel, fully automated decontamination pipeline that uses iterative LLM-powered web search to identify the earliest mention of trial outcomes. We validate the pipeline's quality and accuracy by human expert's annotations. Since CT Open's pipeline ensures that every evaluated trial had no publicly reported outcome when the prediction was made, it allows participants to use any methodology and any data source. In this paper, we release a training set and two time-stamped test benchmarks, Winter 2025 and Summer 2025. We believe CT Open can serve as a central hub for advancing AI research on forecasting real-world outcomes before they occur, while also informing biomedical research and improving clinical trial design. CT Open Platform is hosted at $\href{https://ct-open.net/}{https://ct-open.net/}$

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion. While prior work has mostly studied this in single-agent settings, it remains underexplored in collaborative multi-agent systems. We ask whether awareness of other agents' sycophancy levels influences discussion outcomes. To investigate this, we run controlled experiments with six open-source LLMs, providing agents with peer sycophancy rankings that estimate each peer's tendency toward sycophancy. These rankings are based on scores calculated using various static (pre-discussion) and dynamic (online) strategies. We find that providing sycophancy priors reduces the influence of sycophancy-prone peers, mitigates error-cascades, and improves final discussion accuracy by an absolute 10.5%. Thus, this is a lightweight and efficient way to reduce model sycophancy during discussions and subsequently improve downstream accuracy.

Rare-event prediction is critical in domains such as healthcare, finance, reliability engineering, customer support, aviation safety, where positive outcomes are infrequent yet potentially catastrophic. Extreme class imbalance biases conventional models toward majority-class predictions, limiting recall, calibration, and operational usefulness. We propose LPCORP (Low-Prevalence CORrector for Prediction)*, a two-stage framework that combines reasoning-enhanced prediction with confidence-based outcome correction. A reasoning model first produces enriched predictions from narrative inputs, after which a lightweight classifier evaluates and selectively corrects these outputs to mitigate prevalence-driven bias. In this study we used Logistic-Regression (LR) and a simple Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifiers for this purpose. We evaluate LPCORP on real-world datasets from medical and consumer service domains. The results show that this method transforms the original rare-event prediction problem into a more balanced supervised correction task without discarding or resampling observations. Test-set evaluation demonstrates substantially improved performance, particularly in precision, which is a known weakness in low-prevalence data. We further provide a cost-reduction analysis comparing the expenses associated with rare-event damage control without preventive measures to those incurred when low-cost, prediction-based preventive interventions are applied that showed up to 40+% reduction in some cases.

Regression problems with bounded continuous outcomes frequently arise in statistical and machine learning applications, such as the analysis of rates and proportions. A central challenge in this setting is predicting the response at a new covariate value. Most of the existing literature has focused either on point prediction or on interval prediction based on asymptotic approximations. We develop conformal prediction intervals for bounded outcomes within the framework of transformation regression models, encompassing widely used models such as beta regression and logit-normal regression. We construct non-conformity scores based on model-aligned residuals and identify a quantile-residual score that is particularly well suited to bounded outcomes, bridging normalized conformal prediction and distributional conformal prediction. This score accounts for both the heteroscedasticity inherent in such data and the asymmetry that emerges near the boundaries of the response space. We establish marginal validity and asymptotic conditional validity for both full and split conformal prediction, holding under model misspecification. A comprehensive simulation study confirms that both methods empirically attain valid finite-sample coverage, including cases under model misspecification. A real-data application demonstrates their practical performance against bootstrap-based alternatives.

$\textbf{Objective:}$ Brain-predicted age difference (BrainAGE) is a neuroimaging biomarker reflecting brain health. However, training robust BrainAGE models requires large datasets, often restricted by privacy concerns. This study evaluates the performance of federated learning (FL) for BrainAGE estimation in ischemic stroke patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy, and investigates its association with clinical phenotypes and functional outcomes. $\textbf{Methods:}$ We used FLAIR brain images from 1674 stroke patients across 16 hospital centers. We implemented standard machine learning and deep learning models for BrainAGE estimates under three data management strategies: centralized learning (pooled data), FL (local training at each site), and single-site learning. We reported prediction errors and examined associations between BrainAGE and vascular risk factors (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking), as well as functional outcomes at three months post-stroke. Logistic regression evaluated BrainAGE's predictive value for these outcomes, adjusting for age, sex, vascular risk factors, stroke severity, time between MRI and arterial puncture, prior intravenous thrombolysis, and recanalisation outcome. $\textbf{Results:}$ While centralized learning yielded the most accurate predictions, FL consistently outperformed single-site models. BrainAGE was significantly higher in patients with diabetes mellitus across all models. Comparisons between patients with good and poor functional outcomes, and multivariate predictions of these outcomes showed the significance of the association between BrainAGE and post-stroke recovery. $\textbf{Conclusion:}$ FL enables accurate age predictions without data centralization. The strong association between BrainAGE, vascular risk factors, and post-stroke recovery highlights its potential for prognostic modeling in stroke care.

In the current practices of machine learning, the evaluation of forecasts has become a cornerstone of scientific progress. A multitude of evaluation metrics have been suggested and used to qualify "good" forecasts. What do those metrics share? How are they related? In this work, we use a protocol borrowed from game-theoretic probability to show that a large part of evaluation metrics can be viewed as averaged outcomes of fair gambles. Intuitively, a fair gambler is one which a forecaster would expect to fail. Hence, the gambler's ability to gain disproves the quality of the forecast. Standard evaluation metrics are then variants of choices of such fair gambles. In particular, this choice is structured along two dimensions, one of which separates calibration-type and regret-type metrics. In particular, this framework sheds light on the relationship of calibration and regret showing a theoretical equivalence in their ability to evaluate when being scaled appropriately, but the incomparability of obtained scores.