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:2606. 15600v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Cardinality-estimation (CE) research ranks estimators by q-error, yet it is well known that q-error is an imperfect proxy for query-plan quality.
By Madhulatha Mandarapu, Sandeep Kunkunuru
arXiv:2609.39634v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Common policy improvement methods, including TRPO, PPO, and GRPO, estimate policy improvement under the behavioral policy's state-visitation distribu...
By Nima H. Siboni
arXiv:2602. 17894v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Data collection is a critical component of modern statistical and machine learning pipelines, particularly when data must be gathered from multiple heterogeneous sources to study a target population of interest.
By Michael O. Harding, Vikas Singh, Kirthevasan Kandasamy
arXiv:2608. 14761v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: At a finite public-chance cut, counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) must choose how many outcomes to evaluate before each regret update.
By Jiaxing Guo, Lei Ye
The paper studies distributionally robust ranking and selection (DRR&S), where the goal is to identify the best alternative under input uncertainty by considering multiple plausible input distributions. It introduces the concept of sequential additivity, showing that efficient sampling should focus on a small, additive set of critical scenarios rather than a multiplicative number. The authors prove an algorithm‑independent lower bound on sampling, design an additive allocation (AA) procedure that meets this bound and achieves exponentially decreasing error probability, and extend the approach to a general additive allocation (GAA) framework that incorporates traditional R&S sampling rules.
By Zaile Li, Yuchen Wan, L. Jeff Hong