What Does History Add? Calendar Controls and Information-Timing Audits for University Trajectory Forecasting

Zepei Cao

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.21419

What Does History Add? Calendar Controls and Information-Timing Audits for University Trajectory Forecasting

Zepei Cao

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We audit the predictive value of historical summaries in a rule-based university trajectory simulator. Seventeen ridge specifications and persistence separate current plans, past-state and past-plan summaries, and calendar-only history-length indicators. Across training, validation and two family-held-out evaluations, we reconstruct 16,750 routes and 804,000 monthly records. On the original 40-family set, six-month history lowers six-step normalized RMSE from 0.159234 to 0.151522, but its difference from a length-only control is -0.000895 (descriptive paired 95% interval [-0.001957,0.000248]). Fixed weights on 30 families unused in identified prior tasks reproduce this pattern: 0.156480 to 0.150074 versus current-state prediction, but -0.000558 [-0.001783,0.000728] versus the length control. These uncertain comparisons do not generalize to all-history summaries, which improve on their own calendar control. Exploratory decomposition finds clearer preparation-index and funds benefits, whereas fatigue dominates the six-month model's loss and has an uncertain length-controlled benefit. Moreover, 28.20% of its six-step fatigue predictions violate the simulator's [5,90] support. We document family dependence, prior exposure, strict temporal indexing, matched recursive references and independent numerical replay. The task conditions on recorded future plans; it does not evaluate real-student forecasts, causal action effects, autonomous planning or language-model memory. This is an evaluation audit, not a new memory architecture.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Zepei Cao. 2026-10-15. What Does History Add? Calendar Controls and Information-Timing Audits for University Trajectory Forecasting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21419

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Re-Label Method For Data-Centric Machine Learning

In industry deep learning application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. To solve this problem and achieve more than 90 score in dev dataset, we present a simple method to find the noisy data and re-label the noisy data by human, given the model predictions as references in human labeling. In this paper, we illustrate our idea for a broad set of deep learning tasks, includes classification, sequence tagging, object detection, sequence generation, click-through rate prediction. The dev dataset evaluation results and human evaluation results verify our idea.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Parallel Layer Normalization for Universal Approximation

Layer Normalization (LN) is usually studied for its role in optimization, but it also acts as a multivariate nonlinearity between affine layers. We investigate how grouping LN units affects the approximation power of neural networks as width grows. In Parallel Layer Normalization networks (PLN-Nets), fixed-dimensional LN units are applied independently to groups between two affine layers. We prove that a shallow LN-Net with one LN unit is non-universal regardless of width, whereas PLN-Nets become universal as the number of parallel groups grows. The mechanism extends to deep networks, Root Mean Square Normalization (RMSNorm) variants, position-wise feed-forward networks, and convolutional networks under suitable grouping structures. Controlled MLP and physics-informed neural network (PINN) experiments support PLN's practical viability, while CNN and ViT experiments show that group count shapes the finite-sample fitting envelope but does not act alone: the grouped axes, replacement site, and label structure lead to distinct fitting and generalization behavior.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Thinking-Free Policy Initialization Makes Distilled Reasoning Models More Effective and Efficient Reasoners

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR) effectively solves complex tasks but demands extremely long context lengths during training, leading to substantial computational costs. While multi-stage training can partially mitigate this, starting with overly short contexts often causes irreversible performance degradation, ultimately failing to reduce overall training compute significantly. In this paper, we introduce Thinking-Free Policy Initialization (TFPI), a simple yet effective adaptation to RLVR that bridges long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) distillation and standard RLVR. TFPI employs a simple ThinkingFree operation, explicitly discarding the thinking content via a direct append, to reduce token usage during inference. Training with ThinkingFree-adapted inputs improves performance and lowers token consumption, even in the original slow-thinking mode. Extensive experiments across various benchmarks have shown that TFPI accelerates RL convergence, achieves a higher performance ceiling, and yields more token-efficient reasoning models without specialized rewards or complex training designs. With TFPI only, we train a 4B model to reach 89.0% accuracy on AIME24 and 65.5% on LiveCodeBench using less than 4K H20 hours.

cs.LG↗