探索全球前沿学术脉络

CaReTS: A Multi-Task Framework Unifying Classification and Regression for Time Series Forecasting

arXiv:2511.09789v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in deep forecasting models have achieved remarkable performance, yet most approaches still struggle to provide both accurate predictions and interpretable insights into temporal dynamics. This paper proposes CaReTS, a novel multi-task learning framework that combines classification and regression tasks for multi-step time series forecasting problems. The framework adopts a dual-stream architecture, where a classification branch learns the stepwise trend into the future, while a regression branch estimates the corresponding deviations from the latest observation of the target variable. The dual-stream design provides more interpretable predictions by disentangling macro-level trends from micro-level deviations in the target variable. To enable effective learning in output prediction, deviation estimation, and trend classification, we design a multi-task loss with uncertainty-aware weighting to adaptively balance the contribution of each task. Furthermore, four variants (CaReTS1–4) are instantiated under this framework to incorporate mainstream temporal modelling encoders, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), long short-term memory networks (LSTMs), and Transformers. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that CaReTS outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) algorithms in forecasting accuracy, while achieving higher trend classification performance.

Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems

A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated. We evaluate two open-source systems (OpenAIReview and coarse), one proprietary system (Reviewer3), and a zero-shot baseline, across six LLMs spanning frontier and efficient models. First, we study whether AI reviews on ICLR/NeurIPS papers track with papers' quality as approximated by external signals such as citations and acceptance decisions. Every system performs above chance in pairwise accuracy, and the best is OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5 at 83.0%. Second, to test whether systems can catch errors with known ground truth, we construct a perturbation benchmark that injects four categories of errors into papers across eight arXiv subject classes and measure detection recall. The strongest configuration (OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5) catches 71.6% of injected errors, leaving substantial room for improvement. The union of detections across six models reaches 83.3% recall, suggesting different models detect different errors and better harness design can potentially increase performance. Beyond these benchmarks, we study a public deployment of OpenAIReview with real users. Votes on its comments skew positive at 1.44 to 1, and the most common complaints are about false positives and minor nitpicks. Together, by evaluating full review systems backed by state-of-the-art models on real research papers, we show that while AI reviews still have room for improvement, they can already track human quality judgments well, catch important errors, and earn positive feedback from real users.