Heuristic Pathologies and Further Variance Reduction via Uncertainty Propagation in the AIVAT Family of Techniques

Deciding which of two agents is stronger means playing games until skill outweighs luck, and every game costs money, model inference, or expert time. Since the number of games needed is unknown, fixed-budget evaluations either keep paying after the result is settled or stop before the agents can be told apart, while naive optional stopping with an ordinary confidence interval invalidates the stated level. We make such an evaluation stop as soon as its evidence suffices, with the guarantee intact. The Action-Informed Value Assessment Tool (AIVAT) reduces variance in imperfect-information games through conditional mean-zero corrections, by a median $54\times$ across 15 LLM agent configurations spanning 71,439 paired Heads-Up No-Limit Hold'em (HUNL) hands, but does not say when to stop. We combine AIVAT with continuously monitored Confidence Sequences (CSs) into anytime-valid AIVAT (AV-AIVAT), whose online value model learns only from past games so that no game scores its own correction. At the nominal 95% level and a target precision of $\pm1$ Big Blind, raw outcomes need a median $74\times$ as many hands as AIVAT-corrected outcomes to stop under the Asymptotic CS (AsympCS). Exact finite-sample certification uses the Empirical-Bernstein CS (EB-CS), which needs an independently justified bound on corrected payoffs. We establish such a bound structurally for Leduc hold'em and characterize a width floor set by the CS's bet cap and that bound, which governs how much of a variance gain becomes earlier stopping; the descriptive HUNL EB-CS runs show a median $1.37\times$ stopping-time ratio. AV-AIVAT turns variance reduction into efficient, auditable early stopping while separating asymptotic screening from exact certification, so an evaluation can stop the moment its evidence suffices and hand a third party everything needed to recheck the verdict at that very stopping time.

Counterfactual explanations formalize "what-if" scenarios by identifying modifications to an input instance that obtain a desired alternative prediction. Traditionally, whether generated via instance-specific optimization or amortized single pass models, these approaches rely on a single, deterministic point-estimate predictor. However, this ignores predictive uncertainty and hypothesis variability, leading to brittle explanations that frequently become invalid if the underlying model is retrained or updated. To address this fragility, we propose the Amortized Variational Counterfactual Generator (AVCG), a generalized optimization framework that formulates counterfactual generation as optimization over an arbitrary distribution of plausible predictive hypotheses rather than a single deterministic predictor. This formulation naturally accommodates Bayesian posteriors, Rashomon-restricted hypothesis spaces, and other uncertainty representations within a unified optimization framework. Evaluation across multiple benchmark datasets demonstrates that the AVCG framework produces counterfactual explanations that remain highly valid under predictive uncertainty and model changes, while maintaining competitive plausibility and single-pass runtime performance.

Online controlled experiments are the gold standard for hypothesis testing in online platforms. Notwithstanding their ubiquity, they are notoriously expensive to run, and issues of variance hamper statistical power in assessing treatment effects. While standard variance reduction techniques leverage model-based control variates to reduce outcome noise, they remain agnostic to potential structural relationships between competing policies. In this work, we identify a critical inefficiency in the standard A/B-testing protocol: when a treatment and control policy agree on an action, the resulting outcome contributes noise but no signal regarding the treatment effect -- unnecessarily inflating confidence intervals. We propose a novel experimental protocol that exploits this policy overlap to accelerate experimentation. The key insight is to frame the randomised treatment assignment mechanism as a meta-policy, and leverage $Δ$-Off-Policy Estimation methods to obtain unbiased estimates for average treatment effects. We prove analytically that our approach recovers standard A/B-testing practices in the general case, but that its variance scales with the divergence between policies rather than raw outcome variance. Hence, we dominate the standard Difference-in-Means estimator whenever policies have common support, and the improvement is strict whenever the overlap region contributes non-zero residual variance. Empirical results corroborate these theoretical insights -- holding promise for significant impact on the real-world evaluation of recommender systems, information retrieval pipelines, and large language model interfaces.