Prevalence

Per-user LLM inference on transaction histories binds the inference budget linearly to user count, which becomes prohibitive at applied scale. We re-cast attribute inference from per-user to per-transaction-pattern. The pipeline runs in three phases: Resolve abstracts item names with optional web grounding, Profile infers attributes for each frequent pattern, and Tag clusters free-text attributes into a queryable database. In Profile, a single LLM call per pattern emits predefined categorical labels, free-text attributes, and per-attribute prevalence estimates. Because inference runs over patterns rather than users, the budget grows with the pattern count rather than the user count. On the public Open e-commerce corpus, the database is statistically indistinguishable from an LLM that reads each user's raw history directly in AUC across the evaluated attributes, and the prevalence estimates carry discriminative signal between positive and negative users. The pipeline is deployed at a major Japanese bank profiling on the order of tens of millions of users, with close to a three-order-of-magnitude reduction in LLM inference targets versus a per-user pipeline. The code is publicly available on https://github.com/CyberAgentAILab/profiling-agent-open-ecommerce.

Many ML datasets are constructed by running a detector, heuristic, or model over candidate pools; accepted items become labels. Dataset precision is then governed by true-positive prevalence in each pool via Bayes, not solely by detector quality. Using one instrument and period, we hold a detector-defined event dataset plus an independent official index labeling every detected item as real or phantom. One detector, three pools yield phantom rates 81.7%, 9.0%, and 0.0%. Transferring precision from the two high-rate pools to the low-rate pool predicts 0.955 versus measured 0.183, a +422% error; the Bayes expression predicts all three within 3.3%. The detected response curve is an exact convex combination of a true-event and a phantom component (residual 1.1e-16), with phantoms outnumbering true events 473 to 308, so contamination is a second signal with detector-inherited shape, not additive noise. Contamination direction depends on the estimator: on identical windows one statistic is diluted and another inflated because its denominator is also contaminated. A common normalization turns the estimator into a mean of ratios whose expectation need not exist; on the same 335 events it returns 0.40 where the well-defined estimator returns 0.10.

Privacy policies may contain internal contradictions in which commitments are undermined by practices documented elsewhere in the same policy. We operationalize this phenomenon, privacy washing, through a four-stage pipeline: statement extraction, compatibility filtering and natural language inference screening, multi-model judge verification, and thematic analysis, with contradictions confirmed by majority vote of a three-model LLM panel. Applied to two corpora of website privacy policies, 123 collected in 2026 (OPPT) and 115 collected in 2015 (OPP-115), the pipeline finds the same category patterns recurring across the 11-year gap, with third-party sharing contradictions the majority of confirmed cases in each primary run, consistent with structural factors in policy composition rather than necessarily intentional deception. At least one panel-confirmed contradiction appears in 12.2% of OPPT companies (15/123; 9.8% excluding legacy pairs) and 36.5% of OPP-115 companies (42/115). A stability re-run seven months later, with a fully separated configuration (new extraction models, judges from three Chinese providers absent from both corpora, matched filters, no judge-submission similarity threshold), reproduces the OPPT prevalence under the original protocol (13.0% vs. 12.2%), finds sub-threshold pairs confirm at rates of the same order as those above (raising prevalence to 20.3% and 40.9%), and shows the third-party majority is panel-sensitive while the recurrence of the same category pairs is not. Two caveats govern all figures: panel verdicts are not validated against human expert judgment, so precision is unknown and prevalence figures are lower bounds; and the two primary runs used different filter configurations, so their prevalence difference is not interpretable as a corpus or era effect (the matched re-run reduces the gap to roughly twofold but does not eliminate it).

Large language models (LLMs) can leave small stylistic traces in text written with their help. The most discussed is the em-dash (U+2014), especially the unspaced form word---word, which is normal in typeset English prose but unusual in U.S. press writing, where AP style calls for spaced dashes. This study asks whether that trace is measurable in congressional press releases. In a preregistered design (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5NEY), 146,239 scraper-sourced releases from 480 House and Senate offices (2021-2025, the open congress-press dataset) were analyzed: density of unspaced prose-form em-dashes per 1,000 characters of cleaned text, Poisson/negative-binomial models with a length offset, clustering by office. Density stayed within 0.10-0.12 per 1,000 characters through 2021-2024, then rose to 0.217 in 2025, more than twice the four-year baseline; the share of releases with such an em-dash rose from ~13% to 24.8%. The primary frequency ratio (2023-2025 vs 2021-2022) was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28-1.93; exact registered cut-off: 1.528), just above the prespecified 1.5x threshold. The rise was net-new (hyphen density stable), held within authors (75.6% of 262 continuous offices increased; p ~ 1e-16) and in a closed panel of 224 offices, and survived falsification tests: three placebo cut-offs were null, the pipeline showed no step at the 2024/2025 boundary, and continuing offices carried the rise. A segmented regression finds no step at the ChatGPT cut-off but a clear post-period acceleration; the 2025 rise is symmetric across parties and chambers. Because the registered validation gate was formally breached, the full preregistered decision rule was not met; the interpretation (broad diffusion of LLM-assisted writing as the models matured) is offered as exploratory. The em-dash remains a population-level marker, not a per-release authorship detector, and the design supports no causal claim.

Double Machine Learning (DML) is a popular approach for treatment effect estimation in various settings, which allows a wide range of flexible machine learning methods to be used for nuisance parameter estimation while preserving valid inference. In practice, however, applied researchers must choose among many machine learning algorithms for nuisance models, and the impact of this choice on the variance estimation of DML is not well characterized. We conduct a comprehensive simulation study to compare the coverage probability of DML confidence intervals across different machine learning algorithms. In this study, we compare (1) analytical confidence intervals derived by DML theory versus (2) bootstrap confidence interval. We use a set of learners including ordinary least squares, LASSO, Random Forest, LightGBM, and Neural Networks under different data generation settings. We evaluate the performance across difference settings by bias, confidence interval width, and most importantly, coverage probability. Our results show substantial variability in coverage performance across analytical and bootstrap confidence intervals, highlighting that learner choice plays a critical role in reliable DML inference. Surprisingly, we find that in many settings, when sample size increases, the coverage probability of both DML analytical and bootstrap confidence interval decreases. We further investigate coverage probabilities using a real dataset on rural urban differences among U.S. counties. The real data analysis discovers that (1) the model performance still varies by the learner choices and (2) greater rurality has a statistically significant increasing effect on county level obesity prevalence.

Proxy outcomes (such as short-term behavioral signals, model predictions, or surrogate endpoints) are frequently used in place of primary outcomes that are too slow to mature, rare, or challenging to measure directly. But valid inference on a proxy does not guarantee valid inference on the primary estimate as proxy-based estimates can be systematically biased in ways that are difficult to predict, leading to improperly calibrated confidence intervals. We present proxymate, a framework and open-source Python package for proxy validation and adjustment. proxymate organizes into four levels: The Representativity Level (population validity), the Unit Level (measurement quality), the Estimate Level (decision validity), and the Domain Level (cross-domain transportability). Within each level, proxymate provides diagnostic checks, and targeted adjustment strategies that map specific failures to appropriate corrections. At Meta, proxymate has been adopted by many different use cases, spanning experimentation, prevalence estimation, and monitoring use cases, all facing different proxy challenges (limited human review time, long maturation window of outcomes, low detectability) and showcasing the modularity of the framework. Across all products, proxymate assessed and corrected millions of proxy, primary unit comparisons. It has facilitated launches across multiple work streams including enabling quick decision making on thousands of experiments.

Neural network compression and interpretability remain open challenges in modern deep learn- ing, where billion-parameter architectures deliver impressive accuracy at the cost of trans- parency, computational efficiency, and reliable uncertainty quantification. This paper introduces Neural Atom Prevalence (NAP), a principled Bayesian framework for structured node-level model selection in feedforward neural networks. NAP introduces the neural atom (activation unit) and functions as a hybrid method operating through a four-phase pipeline: Bayesian Lottery Ticket (BLT) identification via Iterative Magnitude Pruning (IMP), soft variational training of the Spike and Slab Independent Gaussian (SS-IG) model, Poisson-Binomial (PB) optimal layer-size selection, and Bayesian fine-tuning to produce a sparse, stable, interpretable, and accurate model. Extensive empirical validation across simulated nonlinear regression, two UCI benchmark datasets (Concrete, YearPredictionMSD), and the MNIST image classification task demonstrates that NAP achieves state-of-the-art structural sparsity, reducing active nodes to as few as 8% of the original dense architecture on MNIST, while well-calibrated probabilisti- cally: the aleatoric-epistemic uncertainty decomposition reveals that model ignorance accounts for only 3 to 4% of total predictive variance across all experiments, and regression reliability diagrams confirm a near-nominal predictive interval coverage (93.4% observed against a 95% target). These results establish NAP as a reliable, theoretically grounded, and computation- ally tractable solution to the simultaneous pursuit of sparsity, accuracy, interpretability, and uncertainty quantification in Bayesian neural networks.

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of hate'' and toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

Accurately estimating the unknown target label distribution is the critical first step for adapting to label shift. This task, widely known as quantification or class prevalence estimation, has recently seen significant advances through continuous KDE-based methods which model the density of multiclass classifier posteriors. Posterior vectors might be regarded as compositional data, since they lie on the probability simplex. However, existing KDE-based quantifiers typically rely on Euclidean Gaussian kernels, which ignore simplex geometry and incorrectly assign probability mass outside its boundaries. We introduce a geometry-aware KDE model for multiclass quantification based on log-ratio representations and Aitchison geometry, together with a shrinkage regularization that improves robustness near the simplex boundary. Combined with a maximum-likelihood interpretation of KDE-based quantification, we derive both point-estimation and Bayesian inference procedures for class prevalences. Experiments on 42 datasets across tabular, text, and image domains show that the proposed method is competitive with state-of-the-art quantifiers, often improving over standard KDE-based baselines, while also yielding strong results among Bayesian quantification methods.

Reconstructing who infected whom often relies on case timing and published transmission links. However, two important questions remain: can a temporal pattern learned from other diseases transfer to a new outbreak, and how reliable are the transmission links used as ground truth? We learned a temporal prior from eleven disease groups using logistic regression. The model was locked before any target-outbreak data were accessed and was then tested without refitting on 29 Andes virus (ANDV) parent-ranking tasks. The locked prior achieved a mean reciprocal rank (MRR) of 0.571, compared with 0.274 for the strongest fair source-trained temporal baseline (permutation p<0.001). Its Top-1 accuracy was 37.9%, compared with 13.8%. The MRR advantage remained significant unless 7-8 favorable task outcomes were reversed. We separately examined the reliability of published transmission links. Among 75 epidemiologically linked inter-host pairs from the 2022 New York City mpox outbreak, 54.67% were genomically unresolved or unsupported as direct transmission links (exact 95% CI: 42.75-66.21%). We also tested whether retaining uncertain transmission edges changed source prioritization. In ANDV and Guangdong Delta outbreak graphs, the top-5 priority sets changed, with Jaccard similarity ranging from 0.429 to 0.667. These results show that temporal information learned across diseases can provide a useful ranking signal without target-specific refitting. They also show that uncertainty in published transmission links can affect which source cases are prioritized for investigation.

Large language models (LLMs) can leave subtle stylistic traces in assisted text; one of the most cited is the em-dash (Unicode U+2014). Yet no one has measured whether em-dash use has changed in the scientific literature. This study, pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (HFT8C), used the full set of medRxiv full-text XML preprints from the official Text-and-Data-Mining resource. The primary cohort was first, original versions deposited 2020-2025 with an extractable Discussion section of at least 500 characters (N = 69,632). The primary endpoint was the presence of at least one em-dash in the Discussion; the principal measure was the absolute change in its prevalence between the pre-ChatGPT era (before 30 November 2022) and the post-ChatGPT era, estimated with a logistic model with standard errors clustered by first author. The analysis plan (six supporting analyses, six sensitivity analyses, two falsification tests) was frozen before any confirmatory result was computed. Em-dash prevalence in Discussion sections rose from 4.23% before ChatGPT to 11.58% afterward, an absolute increase of 7.35 percentage points (95% CI 6.94-7.77; odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 2.77-3.17). The rise was not a sharp jump but a gradual, delayed acceleration: near 4% through 2023, 8.0% in 2024, and 20.3% in 2025. The effect survived every feasible sensitivity analysis (7.35-7.60 pp) and both falsification tests; a placebo split within the pre-LLM era showed no meaningful change (+0.13 pp, 95% CI -0.33 to +0.58), and was essentially absent in boilerplate sections. Independent LLM-associated lexical markers and within-paper section comparisons pointed the same way. The em-dash is a population-level indicator, not a per-paper detector of LLM use, and the design cannot establish causality; it shows that something in how scientific literature is written changed markedly in the early 2020s, and roughly when.

Objectives: To develop a codebook for self-stigma across cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, and to estimate the prevalence, co-occurrence, and temporal patterns of these indicators in Reddit posts by people who use drugs. Methods: We developed a ten-indicator codebook through consensus-based abductive coding spanning cognitive (self-labeling, pessimism/self-defeatism, deservingness/worthlessness), affective (shame, guilt/self-blame, despair/hopelessness), and behavioral (concealment, anticipated rejection, desire to quit, ambivalence) domains; two coders reached substantial agreement (Cohen's k = 0.72). We then scaled classification with a large language model validated against expert coding (k = 0.73, F1 = 0.80), analyzing 72,115 thread-initiating posts from 1,660 English-language users (2006-2025). Results: 3,838 posts (5.3%) from 1,228 users (74.0%) contained self-stigma; all ten indicators discriminated self-stigma posts (RR 3.6 to 86.2), led by self-labeling (56.0%) and despair/hopelessness (48.5%). Self-stigma was integrated: core and behavioral indicators were strongly associated at the user level (OR = 4.65, 95% CI 3.12-6.94, p < 0.001), and 87.0% of posts with behavioral indicators also contained a core indicator. Contrary to progressive models, behavioral indicators emerged earlier than core ones (desire to quit at median position 0.08 vs. shame at 0.38). Nine of ten indicators were stable across posting trajectories; only pessimism increased (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.25-2.10). Conclusion: Among people who use drugs online, self-stigma is an integrated phenomenon in which behavioral indicators rarely appear without internalized ones and often precede them. Most expressions remain stable over time, but pessimism about change deepens, marking a target for early digital intervention and showing that progressive stage models do not map directly onto textual disclosure.

Risk stratification for advanced colorectal polyps typically relies on colonoscopy and/or pathology findings. However, there is growing interest in whether non-invasive features available prior to colonoscopy can help identify patients at higher risk. Such approaches may enhance clinical decision-making by prioritizing surveillance for individuals most likely to harbor high-risk polyps, when colonoscopy resources are limited while potentially reducing unnecessary procedures in lower-risk patients. Importantly, the use of non-invasive, pre-procedural information may also help promote more equitable access to risk stratification, particularly in settings where colonoscopy resources are limited or unevenly distributed. We aimed to develop and externally validate machine learning models to predict high-risk colorectal polyps using only non-invasive, pre-colonoscopy demographic, clinical, and behavioral features in a diverse, predominantly African American, urban cohort. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using demographic, lifestyle, and comorbidity data from patients who underwent colonoscopy at Howard University Hospital to develop and validate several machine learning models, including neural networks, random forest, support vector machines (SVM), Naive Bayes, logistic regression, decision trees, k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and XGBoost, for predicting high-risk colorectal polyps. High-risk polyps (HRP) were defined as villous or tubullovillous adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, polyps >= 10 mm in size, and/or the presence of >= 3 polyps per procedure; all other cases were classified as low-risk polyps (LRP). The dataset included 4,681 patients from 2015-2022 used for internal validation and 1,562 patients from 2023-2024 used for external validation.

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and understanding the circumstances that precede it requires extracting structured information from death investigation narratives. Many of these circumstances require semantic inference beyond simple keyword matching. We develop a ``Complexity Score'' algorithm that analyzes coding manual structure to predict when detailed prompts with full coding guidelines improve over name-only prompts. We then construct a hybrid approach that selects prompt strategy per circumstance. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) against fine-tuned RoBERTa on 25 inferentially complex circumstances from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). We found that LLMs substantially outperform on low-prevalence circumstances where training data is insufficient. We further demonstrate that our framework generalizes across frontier LLMs, with GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama-3 70B showing consistent performance patterns. These findings support a hybrid architecture where LLMs handle rare, inferentially complex circumstances while fine-tuned models handle common ones.

Conformal triage converts predictive scores into deployment actions that either release a case, flag it for urgent attention, or defer it to human review. Under prevalence shift, however, the usual summaries of marginal coverage and human-review rate can miss the safety-critical question of whether patients who truly experience the target event are released without review. To address this gap, we introduce a leakage-aware deployment audit for release-side conformal triage. It first assigns target subjects to three non-overlapping roles: prevalence correction, conformal calibration, and held-out release-safety evaluation. This separation then lets the audit evaluate release directly: how many event-positive patients are cleared without review, whether the pilot has enough event labels for calibration, and how the safety-review trade-off shifts. Applying this audit to a retrospective NSCLC pilot shows why lower review can be misleading: after prevalence correction, the pooled conformal branch lowers review by releasing more patients, some of whom are event-positive. Within the audit, the classwise branch acts as a scarcity diagnostic: the pilot has too few event labels to certify safe low-review release.

Estimating the prevalence of a category in a population using imperfect measurement devices (diagnostic tests, classifiers, or large language models) is fundamental to science, public health, and online trust and safety. Standard approaches correct for known device error rates but assume these rates remain stable across populations. We show this assumption fails under covariate shift and that multicalibration, which enforces calibration conditional on the input features rather than just on average, is sufficient for unbiased prevalence estimation under such shift. Standard calibration and quantification methods fail to provide this guarantee. Our work connects recent theoretical work on fairness to a longstanding measurement problem spanning nearly all academic disciplines. A simulation confirms that standard methods exhibit bias growing with shift magnitude, while a multicalibrated estimator maintains near-zero bias. While we focus the discussion mostly on LLMs, our theoretical results apply to any classification model. Two empirical applications -- estimating employment prevalence across U.S. states using the American Community Survey, and classifying political texts across four countries using an LLM -- demonstrate that multicalibration substantially reduces bias in practice, while highlighting that calibration data should cover the key feature dimensions along which target populations may differ.

Selection bias arises when the probability that an observation enters a dataset depends on variables related to the quantities of interest, leading to systematic distortions in estimation and uncertainty quantification. For example, in epidemiological or survey settings, individuals with certain outcomes may be more likely to be included, resulting in biased prevalence estimates with potentially substantial downstream impact. Classical corrections, such as inverse-probability weighting or explicit likelihood-based models of the selection process, rely on tractable likelihoods, which limits their applicability in complex stochastic models with latent dynamics or high-dimensional structure. Simulation-based inference enables Bayesian analysis without tractable likelihoods but typically assumes missingness at random and thus fails when selection depends on unobserved outcomes or covariates. Here, we develop a bias-aware simulation-based inference framework that explicitly incorporates selection into neural posterior estimation. By embedding the selection mechanism directly into the generative simulator, the approach enables amortized Bayesian inference without requiring tractable likelihoods. This recasting of selection bias as part of the simulation process allows us to both obtain debiased estimates and explicitly test for the presence of bias. The framework integrates diagnostics to detect discrepancies between simulated and observed data and to assess posterior calibration. The method recovers well-calibrated posterior distributions across three statistical applications with diverse selection mechanisms, including settings in which likelihood-based approaches yield biased estimates. These results recast the correction of selection bias as a simulation problem and establish simulation-based inference as a practical and testable strategy for parameter estimation under selection bias.

In recent years, corpus-driven AI methods, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), have seen widespread use in education. While on the surface their abilities look promising for tasks ranging from generating assessment materials to simulating student performance, we should be aware of the subtle nuances of their frequentist nature that might be affecting their behaviour. In this work, we focus on the aspect of corpus frequency in the context of creating high-quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), specifically asking: What if corpus prevalence were enough to identify the correct answer to an MCQ? We propose a computational method of assessing corpus prevalence of MCQ options in large text corpora leveraging textual embeddings using both expert- and machine-generated MCQ sets. The key finding, across three large question sets, is that correct answers, independently of the question stem, are significantly more available than incorrect options. Specifically, using Wikipedia as the retrieval corpus, we find that always selecting the most prevalent option leads to scores up to 9.0% above the random-guess baseline. We also find that MCQ distractors generated by LLMs often show similar patterns of prevalence compared to expert-created options, despite the LLMs' frequentist nature and their training on large collections of textual data. Moreover, we find that corpus prevalence does not necessarily correlate with how recognisable terms are to humans. This highlights the need to better understand how corpora are used in AI-driven methods for education, whether applied directly or indirectly via LLMs.

Rare-event prediction is critical in domains such as healthcare, finance, reliability engineering, customer support, aviation safety, where positive outcomes are infrequent yet potentially catastrophic. Extreme class imbalance biases conventional models toward majority-class predictions, limiting recall, calibration, and operational usefulness. We propose LPCORP (Low-Prevalence CORrector for Prediction)*, a two-stage framework that combines reasoning-enhanced prediction with confidence-based outcome correction. A reasoning model first produces enriched predictions from narrative inputs, after which a lightweight classifier evaluates and selectively corrects these outputs to mitigate prevalence-driven bias. In this study we used Logistic-Regression (LR) and a simple Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifiers for this purpose. We evaluate LPCORP on real-world datasets from medical and consumer service domains. The results show that this method transforms the original rare-event prediction problem into a more balanced supervised correction task without discarding or resampling observations. Test-set evaluation demonstrates substantially improved performance, particularly in precision, which is a known weakness in low-prevalence data. We further provide a cost-reduction analysis comparing the expenses associated with rare-event damage control without preventive measures to those incurred when low-cost, prediction-based preventive interventions are applied that showed up to 40+% reduction in some cases.