The Inference Report

October 13, 2026

There is no major new model release today, no breakthrough benchmark, no regulatory capitulation. Instead, what's visible is the steady widening of a structural gap: the people building AI systems are shipping faster than the people who have to live with the consequences can build guardrails around them. Epic Games is pivoting to AI-first development. Meta shipped Muse Wonder into the frontier model space. Amazon operates over a million robots. Blueprints AI is turning construction permits into machine-readable output in minutes. Meanwhile, Anthropic's Claude filed false murder tips with Philadelphia police. Microsoft's president is calling for regulation because milk has more oversight than AI companies. Police watchdogs are warning that criminals could walk free without controls. The pattern isn't new, but it's accelerating: capability is outpacing accountability, and deployment is outpacing governance.

The economics explain why. A founder netted roughly $25,000 selling a defunct crypto startup's data to AI labs desperate for training material. China is buying Nvidia gaming chips it was never supposed to get because it has no other source of compute. The money flows toward builders and data collectors, not toward oversight infrastructure. The incentive structure punishes caution and rewards speed. A startup that submits false information to police is a problem for police to solve. A startup that automates permits faster than regulators can review them is a business success. What's revealing is where the pressure actually lands: not on the labs releasing models, but on the institutions trying to use them. HR departments are forced to work with fraud detection teams. Federal agencies face critical operational risk and must build governance around AI they didn't design. The compliance burden is migrating downstream to the people deploying AI, not upstream to the people building it.

The infrastructure arms race is accelerating while competitive separation narrows. Microsoft shipped Maia 300 to reduce dependence on Nvidia. Nvidia responded by opening standards, shipping new interconnect hardware with Cisco, and conducting a European roadshow to lock in regional compute commitments. GitHub is pushing Copilot deeper into developer workflows through custom agents. The gap between infrastructure builders moving product and safety researchers moving papers is widening. One side is scaling factories across continents and embedding AI into daily work. The other is documenting risks in controlled settings. Among developers, the split is equally revealing: one cohort optimizes for constraint, running 2.8 trillion parameter models on 4GB GPUs and sandboxing tool output by 98%. The other treats foundation models as commodity infrastructure and focuses on routing work through them, constraining outputs, orchestrating workflows. The field has moved past asking which model is best and into asking how to actually deploy and control what exists.

Grant Calloway

AI LabsAll labs
From the WireAll feeds
Research Papers — FocusedAll papers
Kernel-based External Validity of Experimental Studies stat.ME

The external validity of a study is the extent to which its findings generalize to unseen experimental conditions, such as datasets. We formalize the results of a study together with its research question, and define external validity as the probability that two independent and same-sized replications of the study produce results whose maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) is below a given tolerance. This approach, centered on the choice of a space of results and of an appropriate reproducing kernel for the MMD, is flexible enough to be deployed on multiple different types of results and research questions. Additionally, we establish an asymptotic power-law relation between the size of a study and the quantiles of the MMD, which we use to estimate the desired size of an externally valid study from a small-scale preliminary study. We deploy our framework to rankings with ties and discuss kernels suited to different research questions. Experiments on existing case studies and on a simulated newly designed study illustrate the applicability of the framework. We release our code as part of the genexpy Python module.

Policy Learning with Weak Signals stat.ME

Policy learning in digital experimentation faces three challenges: weak signal-to-noise ratios, rich covariate spaces, and massive data volumes. We formalize this regime by modeling treatment-effect estimates from increasingly fine covariate partitions as Gaussian observations with bounded signal-to-noise ratios. We establish that, in general, the optimal treatment policy is not learnable in this setting. Even learning the optimal policy value suffers from impractically slow rates. However, when treatment effects vary smoothly, we derive minimax-adaptive policies based on linear smoothers that achieve vanishing welfare regret. We demonstrate the practical value of our framework by applying it to large-scale real-world experiments at Netflix, showing that personalized linear-smoothing policies can dominate unpersonalized policies even in this challenging empirical setting.

A perspective note on likelihood approximation and inference for complex simulation models using a chain of aggregated normalizing flows stat.ME

We present a new perspective on the problem of likelihood approximation within the framework of simulation-based inference that promotes scalable and controllable simulation routines for large-scale data analysis, allows efficient parameter space exploration or smooth interpolation in high-dimensions and, thus, supports valid statistical treatments of hypothesis testings as well as uncertainty quantification. In particular, we consider a chain of $n$-aggregated normalizing flows for likelihood approximation scheme, where a set of upfront replicated observation datasets from the forward complex simulation model pass through the first set of bijective transformations, and then subsequently pass to the other sets of bijective transformations. Here, we assume that, for any $k \in \{1,\,2, \ldots, n\}$, the parameters corresponding to the first $k$ sets of bijective transformations are estimated sequentially, in some sense of optimality, for constructing flexible probability distributions, regardless of the remaining $(n-k)$ sets of bijective transformations. Moreover, our objects of interest are to highlight two complementary mathematical arguments that leverage an informatics-theoretic formalization, based-on empirical likelihood estimators under moment restrictions, and a sequential decision-making paradigm, with mixing distributions, for updating and aggregating the estimated parameters of the overall normalizing flows. As a by-product, the framework provides a reliable surrogate model, conditioned on the model parameters defining the forward computational simulation, that allows samples generation, with statistical powers, and facilitates computationally tractable scheme in the Bayesian paradigm for inference, hypothesis testings and uncertainty quantification.

Where Do Two Populations of Persistence Diagrams Differ? Calibrated Local Inference at a Fixed Budget stat.ME

Many two-sample tests for populations of persistence diagrams assess global differences without identifying the regions of the birth-death plane that contribute to them. We study simultaneous inference for local mean contrasts when the number of available diagrams is fixed. They are differences in expected weighted feature mass within $\ell_\infty$ neighborhoods at several centers and radii. We estimate these contrasts using additive landmark responses. A Gaussian multiplier bootstrap calibrates simultaneous confidence intervals while allowing unequal group covariances. The neighborhoods whose intervals exclude zero form a map with approximate family-wise error control, and selecting a subset of original intervals for display preserves their joint coverage guarantee. On the simultaneous coverage event, every reported neighborhood lies within twice its radius of the support of the mean-measure difference. A geometric result gives sufficient radius conditions for a displaced feature to produce a nonzero contrast. A comparison of sufficient detection thresholds quantifies the tradeoff between reducing the number of tested coordinates and reserving observations for an independent pilot. In simulations with 40 to 120 diagrams per class, the bands achieved 94%-98% simultaneous coverage under both the strict null and equal means with unequal covariances. In the latter setting, a permutation maximum and the pooled-t implementation of the two-stage persistence-image test of Moon and Lazar rejected in up to 32% and 26% of runs, respectively. In the fixed-budget simulations, spending a third of the observations on a pilot to choose landmarks or radii located changes less often than a prespecified grid at a single radius. On the MUTAG benchmark, the localized region concentrates on rings of fused-ring systems, an exploratory reading.

Prediction-powered inference for time series across space stat.ME

The following motif is common in spatiotemporal settings: we have a sequence of covariate and label pairs observed for a relatively short, recent time period. We have access to unlabeled covariates over a longer time period. Data is observed over many spatial locations. For instance, crop yield might be observed over a large geographical area for recent years, but weather data (which is informative about crop yield) is available for a much longer period. The goal is to estimate, at each spatial location, the expected label (e.g., crop yield) in the future and provide a valid confidence interval for this value. The observed time period alone is too short for reliable estimates. Imputing missing labels with machine learning can cause substantial bias. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) can correct for this bias, but it relies on an i.i.d. assumption that breaks under our expected temporal dependencies. Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (HAC) procedures account for temporal correlation, but have not been adapted to cases where some labels are imputed. We provide reliable point estimates and confidence intervals given: short labeled time series (across spatial locations), a longer unlabeled time series, and an imperfect predictor of labels given covariates. We show our method outperforms natural alternatives.

Causal Lag Structure Discovery in Confounded Time Series via Orthogonalized Adaptive Estimation stat.ME

Finding which variables cause which others in multivariate time series, and at what lags, is central to science and policy, yet existing methods force a choice between flexible confounder adjustment, data-driven lag selection, and inference that controls the false discovery rate (FDR). ORACLE-VARX does all three in one pipeline. First, double/debiased machine learning (DML) removes nonlinear confounder effects from the outcomes and the lagged series. Second, adaptive causal lag estimation (ACLE) picks the lag order at each time step by sequential significance tests, tracking regime changes. Third, entry-wise $z$-tests with Benjamini--Hochberg correction select directed edges at a target FDR. We prove that in each rolling window, the debiased coefficients are asymptotically normal around a window-averaged target, so their $z$-tests are asymptotically valid. On a synthetic benchmark with time-varying structure and nonlinear confounding, ORACLE-VARX (LightGBM) tracks the true lag order best (RMSE $0.96$ vs $1.1$--$1.5$), has edge FDR $0.047$, close to PCMCI ($0.045$) and below VAR ($0.129$) and VAR-LiNGAM ($0.187$), and forecasts better than all three. On nine U.S. sector ETFs with macroeconomic confounders, it yields interpretable causal graphs whose lag order rises in high-volatility regimes.

BenchmarksFull tables
Artificial AnalysisIntelligence Index

Composite score across coding, math, and reasoning

#ModelScoretok/s$/1M
1Claude Opus 5.557.697$8.00
2Claude Sonnet 5.556130$4.00
3Muse Wonder Full55.80$0.00
4Claude Fable 5.153.466$20.00
5GPT-6 Astra52.760$20.00
SWE-rebench

Agentic coding on real-world software engineering tasks

#ModelScore
1AnthropicFable 5 [high]Model64.5%± 1.41%
2GrokGrok 4.5 [high]Model63.8%± 0.60%
3AnthropicOpus 5 [high]Model63.4%± 1.35%
4Z.aiGLM-5.2 [high]Model62.9%± 1.19%
5OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol [medium]Model62.3%± 1.83%