arXiv AI By Aleh Manchuliantsau

From Checker to Forecaster: Code-Owned Evaluation of Model-Generated Strategic Routes Under Delayed Ground Truth

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 10972v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many evaluations of model outputs rely either on contracts checkable at evaluation time or on feedback that arrives within the operating loop.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 13

From Checker to Forecaster: Code-Owned Evaluation of Model-Generated Strategic Routes Under Delayed Ground Truth

Many evaluations of model outputs rely either on contracts checkable at evaluation time or on feedback that arrives within the operating loop. We study the complementary setting in which ground truth is delayed, censored, or private, so deterministic code cannot check correctness at scoring time and must instead issue a code-owned provisional forecast.

arXiv AI
Sep 25

When Should Forecasting Agents Reason? Behavioral Stress Tests for Reliability Routing

The paper investigates when forecasting agents should employ different behaviors—retrieval, reasoning, deferring to market priors, or using historical analogs—on binary forecasting tasks. It finds that the optimal mechanism depends on the data source, with structured analogs excelling for some processes and market or conservative baselines for others. The authors propose ReliabilityRoute, a rule‑based system that steers agent behavior using reliability features, achieving competitive performance across multiple LLM versions while highlighting that more reasoning is not always better.

By Yufeng Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 15

When Should a World Model Move? Loss-Conditioned State Execution

The paper introduces loss‑conditioned state execution, a model‑agnostic technique that decides whether to apply a world model’s proposed state change or keep the current state based on whether the change reduces downstream loss. It formalizes state movability as the existence of a loss‑reducing feasible correction and constructs loss‑specific proposals from predictive distributions, executing them only when a groupwise lower confidence bound on loss improvement is positive. Experiments on forecasting and dynamics benchmarks show that the method accepts updates for a subset of cases, achieving lower bounded loss than persistence or always executing the proposal, and highlights that event predictability and loss‑based decisions must be evaluated separately.

By Jintao Xu, Zhengyu Chen, Ben Zhang, Yongzhi Qi, Jianshen Zhang
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 24

Evaluation Choices Decide the Forecasting Leaderboard: Evidence from a Production Marketplace Panel

The paper demonstrates that the outcome of a forecasting leaderboard is largely determined by the evaluator’s design choices rather than the models themselves. By fixing the data, horizon, and period, the authors varied three key evaluation decisions—unit of analysis, error pooling, and scoring metric—and showed that each can reverse or eliminate the apparent superiority of any forecasting method. The study also evaluates the practical impact of these choices on a deployed system, revealing that the selection rule captures a significant portion of the potential performance gain, and confirms the findings on an external public dataset.

By Md Rezwanul Islam, Wael Mohammed