Betting

Systems often need to combine two numerical assessments of the same yes/no question. The appropriate formula depends on what the numbers represent and on how the sources are related. Averaging is correct when one of several alternative interpretations applies; multiplying odds is correct when probability reports are based on conditionally independent evidence and a common prior; and probabilities of alternative successful derivations require their dependence or shared evidence to be taken into account. We state the assumptions behind several common combination rules and derive the corresponding combined probabilities. Two groups of Monte Carlo experiments address different questions. First, controlled generating mechanisms verify that the derived rule recovers the correct probability in the situations for which its assumptions hold. Second, the same mechanisms measure the consequences of using a mismatched rule, using logarithmic score and threshold decisions with different costs. Distinct pooling rules can produce the same binary decision at threshold 1/2 while assigning substantially different probabilities, so binary accuracy alone can conceal important differences. We also give probabilistic interpretations of conflicting-evidence rules and show that, for overlapping derivations, retaining the identities of shared uncertain premises permits direct calculation of the probability that at least one derivation is available. Pairwise combination of proof probabilities loses information when there are three or more derivations.

The Independent Chip Model (ICM) converts tournament chips into reference prize equity, and policies are routinely constructed against those values. Because ICM reads only stack sizes, it omits action order, blind obligations, and seat rotation, and it does not price the elimination pressure a big stack puts on the short stacks it can bust. Those omissions can alter the successor-state contrasts that determine a move. We introduce Strategic-Continuation Optimization (SCO), a policy-construction method that enumerates current-hand outcomes, maps them to successor states, prices those states with continuation values computed from the finite tournament model, and optimizes and freezes the resulting current-hand policy. The fixed-ICM comparison policy changes one thing only: the same optimizer solves the same game with successor states priced by analytic ICM, so the two policies differ only through that pricing. We evaluate the resulting policies in a three-player jam/fold tournament with a $1M prize pool. Relative to the frozen strategic-continuation benchmark, analytic ICM has $9{,}036 mean absolute value error across all 2,838 state--seat entries. That value error rewrites the ranges it prices: measured against each decision point's own fixed-ICM jam range, SCO moves the jam frequency by an average of 14.08%. To price those different moves, we compare all 946 states and three policy owners while changing only the focal policy and holding both opponents and the continuation evaluator fixed. The policy produced by SCO earns $214.33 more prize equity per hand on average and is favored in 2,433 of 2,838 matched units. The ordering survives replacing the solver-built opponent with two LLMs and with a family of non-modeling threshold players. This value-to-policy-to-cost chain shows directly when ICM becomes an inadequate objective for tournament strategy construction.

Betting-based sequential tests and Blackwell approachability are linked by a rate-explicit reduction through support-function residuals. For a compact convex target $S$ and vector observations $r_t$, an OCO learner selects a predictable normal $w_t$ and produces $q_t=\langle w_t,r_t\rangle-h_S(w_t)$. We prove the exact pathwise identity $\dist(\bar r_T,S) =\frac1T\sum_{t=1}^Tq_t+\frac{\Reg_T}{T}.$ When $|q_t|\leq B$, composing this identity with one-sided betting yields a finite-time transfer: if the OCO and log-wealth regrets are at most $a_T$ and $\ell_T$, respectively, then a target gap exceeding $$\frac{a_T}{T} +2B\sqrt{\frac{\log(1/α)+\ell_T}{T}}$$ forces rejection by time $T$, while non-rejection certifies the converse radius. We then formulate a controlled stochastic experiment in which an action selected after $w_t$ satisfies Blackwell's supporting-halfspace condition for every null mean payoff. The resulting wealth is an e-process under adaptive nulls; sublinear OCO regret gives stochastic approachability, whereas persistent mean separation under an alternative gives exponential wealth at rate at least $δ^2/(4B^2)$. Deterministic Blackwell games and passive tests are, respectively, the noise-free and singleton-action cases of this protocol. Bounded two-sample means, kernel MMD, and active heterogeneous data sources instantiate the reduction. The resulting connection is exact algebraically, quantitative at finite time, and operational when experiments are controlled.

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.

We introduce WC2026-Agents, a benchmark and dataset for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as autonomous forecasting agents on real, future events. For every one of the 104 matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, four frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.8, ChatGPT (GPT-5.5, high reasoning), Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok (Expert Mode) -- ran an identical search-act-reflect loop: gather evidence with a web tool, commit to a 1X2 (team-A win / draw / team-B win) distribution and a virtual 100-USD bet, and, after the match, reflect given only the final score. Because every match kicked off after the models' training cutoffs, the benchmark is contamination-free by construction. Crucially, we pair the four agents with a fifth competitor drawn from the same information environment -- the pre-match betting market -- collected as per-match 1X2 odds, giving an economically grounded baseline and letting us score not just what an agent predicts but what it does with money. The release contains 416 forecasts and 414 reflections with verbatim reasoning, ground truth (including penalty shootouts), odds, and a reproducible evaluation suite. A reference evaluation surfaces findings that raw accuracy hides: the four agents issue an identical top pick in 92% of matches and none beats the market's Brier score; indeed, a naive flat stake on the market favorite out-earns all four agents. Yet the agents diverge sharply as decision-makers: betting return-on-investment ranges from -18% to +10%, fading the market is unprofitable for all four, the share of forecasts that cite the market ranges from 12% to 100%, and self-reported error rates on wrong picks range from 36% to 86%. The benchmark thus measures calibration, decision quality, and self-knowledge -- axes on which frontier models differ even when their predictions do not. Data and code: https://github.com/graphuofm/FIFA2026LLM

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains, understanding contextual factors that may modulate their decision-making becomes critical. While LLMs are trained to perceive and resonate with users' emotions, it remains unclear whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making. We investigate this question using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a classic psychological paradigm for studying decision-making under uncertainty, combined with an imagination-based emotion induction procedure. We first validate the feasibility of this paradigm by confirming that LLMs can sense strong, distinguishable emotions from context and that LLM agents can learn from sequential interactions in a human-like pace. With the validated setup, we find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average. However, the effects of anger are conditioned: inducing anger makes LLM agents less sensitive to penalties for bad decisions, and in early stages of the game, anger can lower exploration, locking decisions into a few choices early. These findings reveal the subtle yet distinct effects of induced emotion on LLM decision-making compared to human behavior, and provide a tool for future research on affective modulation of LLM agents.

Black-box conditional quantile forecasts are widely used for sequential decisions under asymmetric costs, such as inventory planning in supply chain management. Once deployed, such forecasters must be monitored continuously as data streams drift and regimes change; this invalidates standard, fixed-horizon backtests for calibration. Further, existing backtests do not take into account that the notion of calibration is, in fact, information-dependent: forecasts can look calibrated to an auditor with coarse information while being miscalibrated to an auditor with richer information. We develop a distribution-free and game-theoretic testing framework for continuously auditing black-box conditional quantile forecasters with non-i.i.d. losses, such that the resulting evidence process is powerful against predictably chosen alternatives specified by the features available to the auditor. We first formalize notions of conditional quantile calibration when different sets of features are available to the auditor, establishing that the coarseness of the auditor's information set determines the hardness of the testing problem. We then identify the sets of alternatives for which the auditor can achieve power, and focusing on contextual bets linear in the features, we derive finite-time detection guarantees for such alternatives, all without an i.i.d. assumption. The resulting evidence processes are interpretable at the feature level, as they quantify fine-grained, "feature-aware" evidence for miscalibration. We empirically validate these methods on simulated and real data, finding that a popular time series forecaster (Chronos-2) is highly miscalibrated w.r.t. multiple relevant features.

Live sports commentary is grounded generation under a deadline: statements concern real, named athletes, the grounding state changes every few seconds, and no reference text exists at generation time. We present Pitwall, a production system that generates natural-language Formula 1 strategy briefings in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, treating faithfulness as an architectural property rather than an aspiration: every published sentence is decomposed into typed factual claims (positions, gaps, tyres, pace, overtakes, race control) and each claim is verified against the probabilistic race state that prompted it. The same verifier gates the fine-tuning data: of 3,045 model-written targets, only the 81.9% whose every claim is state-supported are retained, the rest falling back to a provably faithful template, so the generator never sees an ungrounded target. Verification is meaningful because of the grounding substrate: a vectorized Monte Carlo engine (N=2,000 per-lap race continuations) calibrated on 126 races (2018-2024) and validated on fully held-out 2025-2026 seasons (winner-in-top-3 90.3% over 155 backtests; held-out Brier 0.0745). A recurring finding spans both halves of the system: virtues trade off and must be gated separately. In simulation, calibration-optimal is not decision-optimal; in generation, fine-tuning on richer targets buys vividness that collapses into hallucination when the grounding state is sparse -- a failure a four-base replication traces to base-model instruction adherence, not scale, and that sparse-context auditing removes from the production model. End-to-end operation -- live timing to verified trilingual briefings -- was confirmed at two consecutive live Grands Prix (Austria and Britain, 2026); at Silverstone a timestamped probability trace, committed to disk before the outcome was known, locked onto the eventual winner ten laps before the flag.

Diffusion models have become a dominant paradigm for high-quality generative modeling, while post-training is essential for adapting them to diverse downstream applications. However, post-training of large diffusion models is still challenging due to the prohibitive memory footprints and slow training speed, which existing parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods only partially address. To overcome these limitations, we propose FourTune, an efficient post-training framework for diffusion models based on an end-to-end W4A4G4 paradigm. FourTune introduces a triple-branch hybrid pipeline that augments the standard LoRA architecture with a frozen numerical stabilizer to isolate quantization-sensitive outliers, enabling stable training under native 4-bit computation. In addition, FourTune employs hardware-efficient block-wise quantization and customized fused kernels to support efficient quantized backpropagation and reduce memory bandwidth overhead. Across customization, reinforcement learning, and distillation tasks, FourTune matches the quality of full-precision fine-tuning. On FLUX.1-dev (12B), FourTune reduces memory overhead by 2.25$\times$ and increases end-to-end training throughput by 2.27$\times$ compared to BF16 LoRA.

It is increasingly common to aggregate predictions from multiple LLMs, each with domain expertise or access to private tools and data, to improve collective prediction performance. In decentralized settings, aggregation weights need to be determined without access to models' private information and should remain robust to strategic reporting. We propose a family of advantage-aligned wagering mechanisms for LLM aggregation (WALLA), in which each model reports a prediction and a learned wager, and predictions are aggregated using wagers as weights. WALLA introduces a leave-one-out baseline into the net payout function, yielding three desirable properties: (1) dominant-strategy incentive compatibility of prediction under arbitrary belief structure, (2) advantage--wager alignment, where the optimal wager is proportional to the model's expected score advantage, and (3) prediction-agnostic wager optimization, enabling decentralized learning of wager policies without requiring optimal predictions. We further instantiate two mechanism variants that trade off normality and no-arbitrage while maintaining a bounded worst-case deficit for the mechanism. Experiments on question-answering and forecasting benchmarks across heterogeneous models and private-information settings show that WALLA matches centralized aggregation methods in predictive performance, while simultaneously achieving decentralized learning, advantage-aligned aggregation weights, uncertainty awareness, and incentive-compatible prediction.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for structured generation (NER, JSON extraction, QA, and classification) lack formal reliability guarantees, and standard heuristic abstention policies miss user-specified risk targets by 7.5--12.5%. We characterize when conformal risk control (CRC) can certify structured LLM outputs and when it provably cannot. First, we prove an impossibility result: when the base risk (μ> α), any distribution-free method must abstain on at least ((μ-α)/(1-α)) examples, yielding a closed-form feasibility test: one can check whether CRC will work before running it. Second, we analyze a certification hierarchy across Hoeffding, empirical Bernstein, and a betting-based e-CRC bound, with strict gains in low-variance/large-sample regimes: the Hoeffding-to-Bernstein step delivers the largest gain (+37% certified configurations), while e-CRC adds value when calibration data is scarce (10% certification at 20% data versus 0% for Hoeffding). Third, we validate adaptive conformal inference (ACI) under cross-dataset shift, reducing risk-target violations from 71% to 21%, with residual failures concentrated exactly where the impossibility bound predicts. Across six open-weight models (3B--72B parameters), eight datasets, four tasks, and six nonconformity scores, hard NER/QA/CLS configurations are uncertifiable at (α= 0.10); relaxing to (α= 0.30--0.40) unlocks practical certification (47% NER, 40% QA, 60% CLS). The framework gives a three-step deployment recipe: check feasibility, select the bound and score, then mitigate shift.

This note describes an integration of the sim-to-real performance estimate with betting (from Chen et al.) and the safe anytime-valid inference (from Ramdas et al.). Using the scaled simulators. The method produces efficient, reliable certificates for the mean estimate, an approach that is especially valuable in robot performance testing. This note gives a primary, self-contained account of the construction; preliminaries of the respective methods are kept at a minimum, and one shall refer to the original works for full detail. Some synthetic examples demonstrating the proposed algorithm can be found at https://github.com/ISUSAIL/Bet4Sim2Real-EProcess.

A fundamental assumption in statistics and machine learning is that ``the future looks like the past,'' formalized as exchangeability: the joint data distribution is order-invariant. In practice, this assumption is often violated due to distribution shifts over time. Early detection of exchangeability violations is crucial to prevent performance degradation and enable timely interventions like model retraining. Conformal test martingales offer a flexible, distribution-free framework for sequential exchangeability testing with guaranteed false-alarm rate control by betting against the uniformity of conformal p-values. While alternatives such as plug-in martingales and mixture-based strategies exist, computationally efficient baselines like the Simple Jumper are limited to detecting mean location shifts. We propose a family of conformal test martingales based on shifted Legendre polynomials that extend the Simple Jumper to higher-order moments. The Simple Legendre Jumper replaces linear betting functions with polynomials of arbitrary degree, enabling rapid detection of variance, skewness, and other higher-order deviations. The Product Legendre Jumper combines multiple polynomial degrees into a single betting function but suffers from exponential state-space growth, termed the jumping tax. To resolve this, we introduce the Variational Legendre Jumper, which employs a mean-field approximation to reduce complexity to constant time per step with minimal power loss, providing an expressive, scalable framework for real-time distribution shift monitoring.

We ask a structural question: given unreliable elementary problem-solvers, what organizations of them solve hard problems reliably, and what are the limits? We develop a $decomposition~algebra$: elementary solvers are morphisms in a stochastic category, and four combinators (sequential composition, parallel ensembling, verification gating, and recursive reduction) generate the space of compound solvers. We equip this algebra with two homomorphisms, a $reliability$ valuation into the ordered monoid $([0,1],\le)$ and a $cost$ valuation into a commutative semiring, and we derive the composition laws that govern how reliability flows through structure. Our central results are (i) a $verification~odds~law$ (the result that names this report), showing that a verification gate multiplies the odds of correctness by the verifier's likelihood ratio $Λ$, so that $k$ conditionally independent gates yield geometric amplification; (ii) a $reliability~amplification~theorem$, giving target reliability $1-δ$ at $O(\log 1/δ)$ verification depth whenever $Λ>1$; and (iii) a $threshold~dichotomy$: above the critical parameters reliability can be driven arbitrarily close to one at logarithmic cost, while at or below them no amplification is possible. We then show that $self-organization$ is the least fixed point of a monotone improvement operator on the complete lattice of strategies, and that this fixed point equalizes marginal log-odds gain per unit cost. Finally, we prove matching limits: an information ceiling bounds per-gate amplification by a divergence quantity; shared error causes create a strictly positive voting floor, so diversity is $necessary$ for unbounded amplification. Reliability, in short, is neither free nor magical: it is bought with independent information, arranged by composition, and bounded by the verifier.

AI-Driven Research Systems (ADRS) -- systems coupling LLMs with automated evaluation to discover algorithms, proofs, and designs -- are being optimized and adopted across domains, but the tools to analyze them have not kept pace. ADRS performance depends on component interactions that are poorly understood, expensive to explore, and (as we show) not well captured by standard convergence guarantees. These guarantees rely on structural assumptions that do not hold under the ADRS process we formalize. We introduce GAMBLe, a framework that decomposes ADRS behavior into four parameters (generator $G$, assessor $\mathcal{A}$, discovery mechanism $\mathcal{M}$, budget $B$) and one compositional object, the effective landscape $L_{\text{eff}} = \mathcal{A} \circ G$, which reveals that distinct generator-assessor pairs induce structurally different per-problem optimization landscapes. We exercise the framework on 760+ replicated runs (>46,000 iterations) spanning generators from single LLMs to dynamically-adaptive ensembles, mechanisms from greedy selection to co-evolutionary meta-search, and three NP-hard problems whose assessors range from continuous scoring to cliff functions. The experiments reveal no total ordering of generators or mechanisms: frontier models can underperform open-source alternatives and the simplest mechanism sometimes outperforms state-of-the-art meta-search. Results show that even under limited budgets (60 iterations per run), the right component choices can improve performance by 13-67% and search efficiency by 6-39x.

This is a verbatim copy of a technical report I wrote in 2017-2018 to obtain the law of the iterated logarithm using the guarantee on the wealth of an online betting strategy.

Diagnostic performance in medical AI varies systematically across demographic groups, yet subgroup AUC can mask clinically important disparities. At a fixed inference-time operating point, some groups may exhibit over-diagnostic behaviour, characterized by elevated true and false positive rates, while others show under-diagnostic patterns with reduced true and false positive rates. These opposing tendencies can cancel in aggregate AUCs while producing meaningful inequities in clinical decision-making. Motivated by the need to assess and mitigate such disparities at the operating point and across multiple demographic attributes simultaneously, we propose a worst-group equalized-odds margin regularizer. The proposed regularizer explicitly targets subgroup-level deviations on both the true positive and false positive sides at inference. At each update, the method identifies subgroups defined by explicit demographic attributes (e.g., age, sex, and race) that exhibit the most extreme margin deviations and applies a unified penalty, enabling fairness optimization across multiple demographic axes without requiring explicit intersectional constraints. Across two medical imaging datasets in realistic multi-label settings, our method consistently reduces disparities in Equalized Odds and Equalized Opportunity with minimal impact on AUC, preserving diagnostic performance while improving fairness.

In retrieval-augmented coding, failures often begin when the relevant file is absent from the retrieved context. Under frozen generic tokenization, where a BM25 index has been built by a search system whose analyzer the practitioner does not control, this failure is routine: BM25's logarithmic RSJ-odds IDF under-separates the identifier tail that distinguishes one function from another. We replace the outer logarithm of the Robertson-Spärck-Jones odds with a q-logarithm. At q=1 the transform recovers BM25 exactly by L'Hôpital's rule, and for q<1 it is a Box-Cox transform of the RSJ odds with lambda = 1-q. On CoIR CodeSearchNet Go (182K documents), oracle-tuned NDCG@10 rises from 0.2575 to 0.4874 (absolute +0.2299; +89.3% relative; zero sign reversals in 10,000 paired-bootstrap resamples, reported as p <= 10^-4). The effect is graded across code languages and is near-zero on BEIR text. A one-parameter closed form estimates a corpus-level q from hapax density and stays near q=1 on corpora where BM25 is already optimal. The index-time cost is a single pass over the sparse score matrix and query latency is unchanged. A tokenizer ablation shows that identifier-aware tokenization largely removes the incremental gain from q-IDF.

Evaluation of software engineering (SWE) agents is dominated by a binary signal: whether the final patch passes the tests. This outcome-only view treats a principled solution and a chaotic trial-and-error process as equivalent. We show that this equivalence is empirically false. We evaluate 2,614 OpenHands trajectories from eight model backends on 60 SWE-bench Verified tasks. Of these, 47 have enough passing trajectories to construct task-level process references, yielding a 1,815-trajectory evaluation subset. Among passing trajectories in this subset, 10.7% exhibit behavior we call a Lucky Pass: regression cycles, blind retries, missing verification, or temporally disordered exploration, implementation, and verification. We introduce AgentLens, a framework for process-level assessment of SWE-agent trajectories, and define AgentLens-Bench, a dataset of 1,815 trajectories annotated with quality scores, waste signals, divergence points, and 47 task-level Prefix Tree Acceptor (PTA) references. AgentLens builds PTA references by merging multiple passing solutions for the same task, and uses a context-sensitive intent labeler to assign actions to Exploration, Implementation, Verification, or Orchestration based on trajectory history rather than tool identity alone. On AgentLens-Bench, the quality score separates passing trajectories into Lucky, Solid, and Ideal tiers and further decomposes Lucky Passes into five recurring mechanisms. Across the eight model backends, Lucky rates range from 0.5% to 23.2%, and some models move by as many as five rank positions when ranked by quality score instead of pass rate. We plan to release the project repository soon, including AgentLens-Bench artifacts, the AgentLens SDK, and the analysis tooling.

Recent attacks show that behavioural unlearning of large language models leaves internal traces recoverable by adversarial probes. We characterise where this retention lives and show it can be surgically removed without measurable capability cost. Our central protocol is a leave-one-out cross-sequence probe that tests whether a memorisation signature generalises across held-out sequences. The signature is real and consistent across scale: memorisation-specific gaps of +0.32, +0.19, +0.30 on Pythia-70M, GPT-2 medium, and Mistral-7B; on Pythia-70M, the random-initialisation control collapses to -0.04 at the deepest layer where the pretrained signature peaks. The probe direction is causally separable from recall -- projecting it out collapses the signature locally (+0.44 -> -0.19) while behavioural recall barely changes -- and a probe trained on naturally memorised content does not classify fine-tuning-injected secrets, marking two representationally distinct regimes. We then introduce probe-geometry alignment (PGA), a surgical erasure that aligns activations along the probe's live readout direction at each depth. PGA drives the cross-sequence probe below random chance at all four scales tested (toy depth-4: 0.17; Pythia-70M: 0.07; Mistral-7B: 0.45; GPT-2 medium: 0.06 via MD-PGA k=2) and remains robust to six adversarial probe variants. Against a re-fitting attacker who trains a fresh probe on PGA-treated activations, we extend PGA adversarially, defeating the re-fit probe at every memorisation-relevant depth while preserving five zero-shot capability benchmarks within 2.8 percentage points per task (mean Δacc = +0.2pp). The cross-sequence signature is a real, causally separable, regime-specific property of pretrained representations -- removable below chance with a single rank-one intervention per depth at no measurable capability cost.

This paper studies the problem of robot performance evaluation, focusing on how to obtain accurate and efficient estimates of real-world behavior under severe constraints on physical experimentation. Such estimates are essential for benchmarking algorithms, comparing design alternatives, validating controllers, and supporting certification or regulatory decision-making, yet real-world testing with physical robots is often expensive, time-consuming, and safety-limited. To mitigate the scarcity of real-world trials, sim-to-real methodologies are commonly employed, using low-cost simulators to inform, supplement, or prioritize physical experiments. Departing from (and complementary to) existing approaches in variance reduction (e.g., importance-sampling variants) or bias-correction (e.g., through prediction-powered inference or learned control variates), we examine this performance-evaluation problem through the lens of betting. We establish theoretical conditions under which a betting mechanism can yield accurate and efficient estimates (provably outperforming the Monte Carlo estimator) and we characterize how such bets should be constructed. We further develop theoretically grounded yet practically implementable approximations of the ideal bet, and we provide concrete decision rules that diagnose when these approximate betting strategies are working as intended. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods using both synthetic examples and cross-fidelity computational simulators. Notably, we also showcase an illustrative case in which a group of synthetic distributions are used to infer the real-world pick-and-place accuracy of a robotic manipulator, a seemingly unconventional sim-to-real transfer that becomes natural and feasible under the proposed betting perspective. Programs for reproducing empirical results are available at https://github.com/ISUSAIL/Bet4Sim2Real.

While the human eye can perceive an impressive twenty stops of dynamic range, smartphone camera sensors remain limited to about twelve stops despite decades of research. A variety of high dynamic range (HDR) image capture and processing techniques have been proposed, and, in practice, they can extend the dynamic range by 3-5 stops for handheld photography. This paper proposes an approach that robustly captures dynamic range using a handheld smartphone camera and lightweight networks suitable for running on mobile devices. Our method operates indirectly on linear raw pixels in bracketed exposures. Every pixel in the final HDR image is a convex combination of input pixels in the neighborhood, adjusted for exposure, and thus avoids hallucination artifacts typical of recent deep image synthesis networks. We validate our system on both synthetic imagery and unseen real bracketed images -- we confirm zero-shot generalization of the method to smartphone camera captures. Our iterative inference architecture is capable of processing an arbitrary number of bracketed input photos, and we show examples from capture stacks containing 3--9 images. Our training process relies only on synthetic captures yet generalizes to unseen real photos from several cameras. Moreover, we show that this training scheme improves other SOTA methods over their pretrained counterparts.

Many high-stakes AI deployments proceed only if every stakeholder deems the system acceptable relative to their own minimum standard. With randomization over a finite menu of options, this becomes a feasibility question: does there exist a lottery over options that clears all stakeholders' acceptability bars? We study a query model where the algorithm proposes lotteries and receives only binary accept/reject feedback. We give deterministic and randomized algorithms that either find a unanimously acceptable lottery or certify infeasibility; adaptivity can avoid eliciting many stakeholders' constraints, and randomization further reduces the expected elicitation cost relative to full elicitation. We complement these upper bounds with worst-case lower bounds (in particular, linear dependence on the number of stakeholders and logarithmic dependence on precision are unavoidable). Finally, we develop learning-augmented algorithms that exploit natural forms of advice (e.g., likely binding stakeholders or a promising lottery), improving query complexity when predictions are accurate while preserving worst-case guarantees.

Converting betting odds into accurate outcome probabilities is a fundamental challenge in order to use betting odds as a benchmark for sports forecasting and market efficiency analysis. In this study, we propose two methods to overcome the limitations of existing conversion methods. Firstly, we propose an odds-only method to convert betting odds to probabilities without using historical data for model fitting. While existing odds-only methods, such as Multiplicative, Shin, and Power exist, they do not adjust for biases or relationships we found in our betting odds dataset, which consists of 90014 football matches across five different bookmakers. To overcome these limitations, our proposed Odds-Only-Equal-Profitability-Confidence (OO-EPC) method aligns with the bookmakers' pricing objectives of having equal confidence in profitability for each outcome. We provide empirical evidence from our betting odds dataset that, for the majority of bookmakers, our proposed OO-EPC method outperforms the existing odds-only methods. Beyond controlled experiments, we applied the OO-EPC method under real-world uncertainty by using it for six iterations of an annual basketball outcome forecasting competition. Secondly, we propose a generalised linear model that utilises historical data for model fitting and then converts betting odds to probabilities. Existing generalised linear models attempt to capture relationships that the Efficient Market Hypothesis already captures. To overcome this shortcoming, our proposed Favourite-Longshot-Bias-Adjusted Generalised Linear Model (FL-GLM) fits just one parameter to capture the favourite-longshot bias, providing a more interpretable alternative. We provide empirical evidence from historical football matches where, for all bookmakers, our proposed FL-GLM outperforms the existing multinomial and logistic generalised linear models.

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

We propose conformal predictive programming (CPP), a framework to solve chance constrained optimization problems, i.e., optimization problems with constraints that are functions of random variables. CPP utilizes samples from these random variables along with the quantile lemma - central to conformal prediction - to transform the chance constrained optimization problem into a deterministic problem with a quantile reformulation. CPP's main strength is an independent calibration step that provides a posteriori guarantees for the solution of this problem that are of conditional and marginal nature otherwise. These guarantees even apply in settings when assumptions required for obtaining standard a priori guarantees (e.g., in scenario optimization or sample average approximation) are unavailable, difficult to compute, or conservative. Another strength of CPP is that it can easily support different variants of conformal prediction which have been (or will be) proposed within the conformal prediction community. To illustrate this, we present robust CPP to deal with distribution shifts in the random variables and Mondrian CPP to deal with class conditional chance constraints. In a series of case studies, we show the validity of the aforementioned approaches, and illustrate the advantage of CPP as compared to scenario approach.

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.