Skip to content
Preprint

The Label Defines the Timescale: Trait-State Limits of Temporal-Aggregate Learning

Aug 2026 · 1 citation · ⚡ 1 influential · 22 references
Mathematics Computer Science

TL;DR

This work decomposes label variance into an $O(1)$ trait component and an $O(T^{-1})$ state component, explaining why a snapshot can retain cross-sectional predictability while poorly tracking within-person change, and derives task-dependent effective temporal spans.

Abstract

Machine-learning benchmarks often pair a label that aggregates a long temporal horizon with input observed through one or a few short windows. Their apparent performance ceiling may therefore be an acquisition-protocol ceiling rather than a model-capacity ceiling. We study labels of the form $\Theta_{g,T}=T^{-1}\int_0^T g\{Z(t)\}\,\mathrm{d}t$ when the latent Gaussian process contains both a stable individual trait and a correlated within-individual state. An exact protocol-conditioned Bayes-risk identity provides a common tool. First, we decompose label variance into an $O(1)$ trait component and an $O(T^{-1})$ state component, explaining why a snapshot can retain cross-sectional predictability while poorly tracking within-person change. Second, we derive task-dependent effective temporal spans: mean labels depend on the ordinary correlation time, whereas occupation-time labels depend on an entire spectrum of higher-order correlation times. Third, state-driven occupation-label variance is maximal when the stable trait lies at the threshold; window efficiency decays much more slowly away from that boundary. Under an equal segment budget, exact risks and Monte Carlo experiments show that repeated segments at one time rapidly saturate, whereas temporally dispersed observations continue to increase state explainability. The trait ceiling uses quantities available from ordinary test-retest data; only the state ceiling requires short-lag temporal calibration. The results distinguish architectural limits from protocol limits and show that the label, rather than duration or segment count alone, defines the relevant timescale.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Estimating the Conditional Forecast-Revision Scale in Sequential Models: Local-Smoothing Limits, Matched Models, and Cost--Accuracy Trade-offs

The \emph{conditional forecast-revision scale} $\It=\{\Var(\E[X_{t+1}\mid\F_t]\mid\F_{t-1})\}^{1/2}$ measures the history-specific size of the forecast update induced by observing $X_t$. Because it is a conditional second moment built from two unknown conditional means, it is not directly observed. We study which estim...

H. Foo, Y. Chang · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Pooling and Drift in Delayed Bandits

This work proves that on generated data, the state channel cuts regret by up to 79 percent against action-level weighting and, on the funnel family, by 32 to 68 percent against a tuned minimax-optimal method.

Melika Baghi · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

An Anchored Logistic Family for Bounded Trait Measurement and Growth: Origin Before Unit

Latent trait models differ less in what they measure than in what they fix. Item response theory frees the trait from the items administered but, in doing so, surrenders the origin and unit of the scale to convention. The Cognitive Trait Model (CTM; Choi, 2022) restores both by bounding the trait on [0, 1], where 0 den...

Jaehwa Choi · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

Fast Weight Attention for Continual Learning

This framework separates temporal alignment, plasticity, forgetting, and bounded rehearsal in recurrent sequence models, together with numerically stable positive-decay renormalization, to remain competitive in language modeling and improve length extrapolation on variable-digit addition.

Yi-Fan Zhang, Steve Ta, Jasper Zhang et al. · 0 citations

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