SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Ali Aledhari

Publications and source records attributed to Ali Aledhari.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Soft Learning

Modern machine learning forces practitioners to choose between powerful but expensive deep networks and fast but limited classical algorithms. Here we introduce Soft Learning, a framework that maintains a library of heterogeneous specialists -- spanning linear models, tree ensembles, kernel machines, and neural networks -- and discovers provably optimal combination weights through cross-validated non-negative least squares. Soft Learning is guaranteed to match or exceed the best weighted combination of its specialists, trains over two orders of magnitude faster than deep networks on CPU alone (72-435x faster across tested configurations), provides inherent interpretability through learned weights that reveal which algorithmic paradigm best fits the data, and is future-proof: adding specialists is mathematically guaranteed to maintain or improve performance. Across 37 datasets (25 classification, 12 regression) against nine methods including CatBoost and tuned deep networks, Soft Learning ranks first on 70% of tasks, achieves the best mean rank (Friedman test, p = 1.12 x 10^-12), and is the only method to simultaneously excel at both classification and regression -- all without GPU hardware or hyperparameter tuning. These results suggest a paradigm shift from "which algorithm is best?" to "what is the provably optimal combination?" -- a question Soft Learning answers with formal guarantees for any data modality.

cs.LG

Response drift across frontier large language models

All frontier large language models (LLMs) exhibit response drift -- producing outputs that deviate from expert-validated references -- yet the magnitude and structure of this drift remain uncharacterised by systematic human evaluation. Here we report a fully crossed evaluation in which 47 geographically diverse participants each assessed all 62 multidomain questions across ten frontier LLMs under blinded conditions, yielding 29,140 independent assessments. Every model drifts, but drift magnitude varies substantially: eight models converge on a statistically indistinguishable ceiling (78-81% deviation), while two achieve lower deviation (47-49%). Drift profiles differ across six domains and 62 questions, with pairwise correlations among ceiling models exceeding r = 0.85. Automated similarity metrics explain less than 2% of variance in human judgements. These findings reveal that response drift is universal across frontier LLMs, domain- and question-dependent in structure, and accessible only through human-centred evaluation.

cs.CL