Skip to content

Partial-Revelation Panel Forecasting: Predictive Information Gain, Allocation, and Coarsening-Consistent Operators

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 27 references
Computer Science

Abstract

We study partial-revelation panel forecasting: given $k$ of $n$ annotator votes on the previous dialogue turn, predict the full count distribution of the next turn's panel. This cross-turn predictive information differs from same-item annotation value. Under any nested revelation mechanism, the population decrement satisfies $V(k)-V(k+1)=I(Y;R_{k+1}\mid X_k)$; a fitted model also contributes adjacent excess-risk differences. Coarsened-completely-at-random (CCAR) masking supplies the exchangeable random-rater interpretation used in our operators. We define coarsening-consistent panel operators with a closed-form Dirichlet-multinomial realization, learned completion, and rater-count transfer. Against per-level lookup, cold-start count negative log-likelihood differences are -0.422/-0.166/-0.014 nats on IEMOCAP/M3ED/EmoWOZ. A held-out rater experiment measures same-item value: first and second additional votes reduce NLL by 0.583/0.221, 0.578/0.184, and 0.180/0.069 nats, respectively. Cross-turn and same-item gains are not interchangeable, and CCAR masks are controlled interventions rather than observed arrival processes. Consistency is auditable but does not guarantee predictive improvement; per-level marginalization can outperform a shared table. Target-free allocation beats uniform only where row-level signal is predictable: at budget one it recovers 83--93% of retrospective feature class headroom on IEMOCAP/M3ED but does not improve EmoWOZ. Gains are modest and corpus-dependent, with several small or null partial-revelation differences. Code and aggregate result artifacts accompany the preprint.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.

Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28
#machine learning Review Open access Jun 2014

Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Framework

This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.

Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson · 175 citations · ⚡19

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.