Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Post-hoc correction adjusts a forecaster that cannot be retrained, such as a foundation model, but a correction fitted where errors are stable can hurt where they shift. We aim for downside control: not much worse than the starting forecast. We combine the frozen forecaster, a static corrector and an online corrector on the simplex, using only losses that mature after the horizon. Across seven benchmarks and four base models, two of them foundation models, the worst deterioration over 28 pairs at the main horizon is 0.15% and gains reach 11.5%. On day-ahead load for seven European bidding zones it lowers mean MSE in all seven zones, while single correctors raise mean MSE by up to 102% where the published forecast is most accurate. Three empirical conditions on expert speed, stream length and outcome alignment, each fixed by a documented failure, delimit its scope. Learning from the provisional outcome improves four zones on the settled one; learning on the settled outcome restores all seven.