arXiv subjects

Noelle I. Samia

Publications and source records attributed to Noelle I. Samia.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

LLM Agents for Time-Series: A Survey

LLM-based agents are increasingly being developed for time-series problems, but their design choices vary substantially across task settings. This survey adopts a problem-driven taxonomy that organizes these systems by the time-series problems they address rather than by isolated technical components. We group existing systems into four categories: forecasting and reasoning, augmentation and synthesis, anomaly detection and diagnosis, and decision support. Within each category, we examine how task requirements shape agent architecture, tool use, and memory design. We further summarize representative datasets and environments, and compare reported model performance under shared or closely related settings. Overall, this survey offers a task-oriented guide to designing LLM-based agents for time-series problems and identifies open gaps for future work.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

DS$^2$-Instruct: Domain-Specific Data Synthesis for Large Language Models Instruction Tuning

Adapting Large Language Models (LLMs) to specialized domains requires high-quality instruction tuning datasets, which are expensive to create through human annotation. Existing data synthesis methods focus on general-purpose tasks and fail to capture domain-specific terminology and reasoning patterns. To address this, we introduce DS$^2$-Instruct, a zero-shot framework that generates domain-specific instruction datasets without human supervision. Our approach first generates task-informed keywords to ensure comprehensive domain coverage. It then creates diverse instructions by pairing these keywords with different cognitive levels from Bloom's Taxonomy. Finally, it uses self-consistency validation to ensure data quality. We apply this framework to generate datasets across seven challenging domains, such as mathematics, finance, and logical reasoning. Comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that models fine-tuned on our generated data achieve substantial improvements over existing data generation methods.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SELDON: Supernova Explosions Learned by Deep ODE Networks

The discovery rate of optical transients will explode to 10 million public alerts per night once the Vera C. Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time comes online, overwhelming the traditional physics-based inference pipelines. A continuous-time forecasting AI model is of interest because it can deliver millisecond-scale inference for thousands of objects per day, whereas legacy MCMC codes need hours per object. In this paper, we propose SELDON, a new continuous-time variational autoencoder for panels of sparse and irregularly time-sampled (gappy) astrophysical light curves that are nonstationary, heteroscedastic, and inherently dependent. SELDON combines a masked GRU-ODE encoder with a latent neural ODE propagator and an interpretable Gaussian-basis decoder. The encoder learns to summarize panels of imbalanced and correlated data even when only a handful of points are observed. The neural ODE then integrates this hidden state forward in continuous time, extrapolating to future unseen epochs. This extrapolated time series is further encoded by deep sets to a latent distribution that is decoded to a weighted sum of Gaussian basis functions, the parameters of which are physically meaningful. Such parameters (e.g., rise time, decay rate, peak flux) directly drive downstream prioritization of spectroscopic follow-up for astrophysical surveys. Beyond astronomy, the architecture of SELDON offers a generic recipe for interpretable and continuous-time sequence modeling in any time domain where data are multivariate, sparse, heteroscedastic, and irregularly spaced.

astro-ph.IM↗

arXiv2020

A Case Study in Model Failure? COVID-19 Daily Deaths and ICU Bed Utilisation Predictions in New York State

Forecasting models have been influential in shaping decision-making in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is concern that their predictions may have been misleading. Here, we dissect the predictions made by four models for the daily COVID-19 death counts between March 25 and June 5 in New York state, as well as the predictions of ICU bed utilisation made by the influential IHME model. We evaluated the accuracy of the point estimates and the accuracy of the uncertainty estimates of the model predictions. First, we compared the "ground truth" data sources on daily deaths against which these models were trained. Three different data sources were used by these models, and these had substantial differences in recorded daily death counts. Two additional data sources that we examined also provided different death counts per day. For accuracy of prediction, all models fared very poorly. Only 10.2% of the predictions fell within 10% of their training ground truth, irrespective of distance into the future. For accurate assessment of uncertainty, only one model matched relatively well the nominal 95% coverage, but that model did not start predictions until April 16, thus had no impact on early, major decisions. For ICU bed utilisation, the IHME model was highly inaccurate; the point estimates only started to match ground truth after the pandemic wave had started to wane. We conclude that trustworthy models require trustworthy input data to be trained upon. Moreover, models need to be subjected to prespecified real time performance tests, before their results are provided to policy makers and public health officials.

q-bio.PE↗

arXiv2020

Learning as We Go: An Examination of the Statistical Accuracy of COVID19 Daily Death Count Predictions

This paper provides a formal evaluation of the predictive performance of a model (and its various updates) developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) for predicting daily deaths attributed to COVID19 for each state in the United States. The IHME models have received extensive attention in social and mass media, and have influenced policy makers at the highest levels of the United States government. For effective policy making the accurate assessment of uncertainty, as well as accurate point predictions, are necessary because the risks inherent in a decision must be taken into account, especially in the present setting of a novel disease affecting millions of lives. To assess the accuracy of the IHME models, we examine both forecast accuracy as well as the predictive performance of the 95% prediction intervals provided by the IHME models. We find that the initial IHME model underestimates the uncertainty surrounding the number of daily deaths substantially. Specifically, the true number of next day deaths fell outside the IHME prediction intervals as much as 70% of the time, in comparison to the expected value of 5%. In addition, we note that the performance of the initial model does not improve with shorter forecast horizons. Regarding the updated models, our analyses indicate that the later models do not show any improvement in the accuracy of the point estimate predictions. In fact, there is some evidence that this accuracy has actually decreased over the initial models. Moreover, when considering the updated models, while we observe a larger percentage of states having actual values lying inside the 95% prediction intervals (PI), our analysis suggests that this observation may be attributed to the widening of the PIs. The width of these intervals calls into question the usefulness of the predictions to drive policy making and resource allocation.

stat.OT↗