Statistical Inference

Single-image-to-3D generators are improving quickly, but there is no agreed, human-free way to tell whether one generated mesh is better than another. Practitioners commonly rely on cheap automatic proxies (render-space CLIP similarity and mesh geometry-validity statistics), yet how well these track perceived quality is unestablished. We make two contributions. First, we propose and validate a reproducible VLM-judge evaluation protocol: a fixed 24-view headless render rig, two independent vision-language judge families, and a mandatory position-bias correction that queries both presentation orders and keeps only order-consistent verdicts. The two judge families agree substantially with each other (Cohen's kappa = 0.66), well above the chance-agreement floor. Second, using this protocol as the reference, we show the cheap proxies do not substitute for it. Geometry validity is only a weak signal on average (because, as we show, it is bimodal) and stays below our pre-registered target, while render-CLIP is at chance. A learned Bradley-Terry head collapses onto a single manifoldness statistic (giving render-CLIP a negative weight) and matches geometry-only exactly, so learning the feature weights buys nothing. The proxy is also bimodal: it is significantly above chance on contrasts with visible geometric defects but at chance on ambiguous contrasts, consistent with geometry validity tracking the judge only when the defect is visually salient. We therefore recommend the VLM-judge protocol as a reliable, reproducible evaluator under the conditions tested (two feed-forward generators on Google Scanned Objects, with a face-drop degradation regime) and advise against geometry/CLIP proxies as optimization targets.

In learning theory, the sign rank of a binary concept class captures the smallest dimension in which it can be represented by points and halfspaces. Despite tremendous interest, lower bounds on sign rank are notoriously difficult to come by. Two recent approaches to the problem establish lower bounds on sign rank by measures that are easier to analyze: the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index and the list replicability number. We order these measures, showing that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index is upper-bounded by a linear function of the list replicability number. As a main consequence, we obtain a strong separation between sign rank and $\mathbb{Z}_2$-index, thereby resolving a question of Frick, Hosseini, and Vasileuski. This motivates a thorough study of list replicability, the stronger of the two lower-bounding measures. We establish upper bounds on the list replicability number by two combinatorial measures: height and minimum star number. We also prove a fundamental composition result, showing that the product of two concept classes has list replicability number bounded by the sum of the list replicability numbers of the two classes.

Detecting distributional differences between two independent samples is a fundamental problem in statistics and machine learning. Nonparametric two-sample testing provides a principled framework for determining whether two samples are drawn from the same underlying distribution, without assuming any specific parametric form for the distribution. In this study, we propose a new two-sample test statistic based on a newly introduced integral probability metric (IPM), using a specially designed parametric discriminator class with a single node of a neural network. We show that the resulting test statistic, called PReLU-IPM, is nonparametric and establish theoretical guarantees for the associated two-sample testing procedure, PReLU-TST, including its consistency and asymptotical equivalence to nonparametric IPM-based tests under regularity conditions. By analyzing multiple simulated and real benchmark datasets, we demonstrate that PReLU-TST achieves higher power across a range of alternatives or performs comparably to its competitors, for finite samples.

This study systematically compares Turbo-Quant and SpectralQuant KV-cache compression, evaluating non-dominated schemes, including WHT rotation with Beta Lloyd-Max and QJL, through a statistical validation methodology that separates systematic codec differences from implementation variance. Key findings reveal that while eigenbasis-based methods fail on heavy-tailed data due to covariance instability, they excel in structured regimes, with the effective semantic dimension ($d_{eff}$) adapting to calibration budgets rather than true data rank. (this is an abstract of the abstract thank you )

Scientific discovery relies on large-scale hypothesis testing. However, the capacity to identify true discoveries while controlling false discovery faces major challenges: obtaining relevant reference data (the null distribution) is resource-intensive, leaving finite-data uncertainty, and the procedure should account for the inherent structure in the hypothesis space, when such structure exists. Here, we present a framework for controlling the false discovery rate both when each hypothesis is evidenced only by a finite count of null draws, leaving its p-value uncertain, and when the hypothesis space carries arbitrary structure, requiring only that the structure be represented through a suitable reproducing kernel. We present two decision rules that are both robust to structural mis-specification, yet offer a distinct trade-off between exact FDR control and statistical power. The first rule guarantees exact FDR control; the second maximizes power by adapting mirror-statistic control into count space, utilizing an analytical framework to assess FDR control when exact mirror symmetry is relaxed. Furthermore, the tractability gained by the RKHS framework allows us to directly investigate finite-data uncertainties, which we leverage to suggest a policy for the efficient allocation of null distribution samples.

This paper provides identification results to characterize a fairness-accuracy (FA) frontier, and statistical inference tools to test hypotheses and build a confidence set for the FA-frontier, when outcomes are observed only for selected individuals. When the selection process is unrestricted but loss is measured in specific ways, we provide a characterization of the sharp identification region of the FA-frontier. Under an assumption of unconfoundedness conditional on observables (and unrestricted loss functions), we obtain point identification and propose a debiased machine learning estimator, derive its asymptotic distribution, and show how this can be used to carry out inference for the FA-frontier. In work in progress, we extend the partial identification results to a broader class of loss functions.

Persistence diagrams are common representations in topological data analysis, but they do not naturally live in a vector space, and the statistical tools developed for comparing them have largely evolved separately from those used for downstream prediction. We introduce STRAND (Survival Topological Representation ANalysis of Diagrams), which treats (collections of) PDs as survival data: each topological feature with persistence value $p = d - b$ is a fully observed time-to-event, and the persistence survival function $S(t) = \mathbb{P}(p > t)$ is the central object for comparing diagrams. From this single representation we derive (i) a non-parametric two-sample test with calibrated Type I error and high power from a small number of diagrams; (ii) interpretable effect sizes; and (iii) a 1-Wasserstein-stable feature vector for downstream machine learning. We validate calibration and power on synthetic manifolds with controlled topology, demonstrate competitive vectorisation across 14 graph and 3D point cloud benchmarks, and apply the method to study functional brain connectivity in fMRI/neuroscience data. To our knowledge, STRAND is the first method to provide hypothesis testing and vectorisation for persistence diagrams from a single coherent and interpretable representation.

Recovering cosmological information beyond the power spectrum is a central goal for upcoming cosmological surveys, since late-time non-Gaussian signal in the matter density cannot be accessed through two-point statistics alone. Marked statistics fold part of this information back into the two-point level by reweighting the field with non-linear functions. We propose a neural marking scheme to generalize this process through a set of interpretable, physically motivated transformations that directly allow to interpret the gain in cosmological information at the morphological level. We employ a contrastive learning objective to align learnable marked summaries with the underlying cosmological parameters. At $k_{\max}=0.2\,h\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, our neural mark tightens the marginalized constraint on $σ_8$ by $2.9\times$ and on $Ω_m$ by $1.8\times$ compared to classical marks, breaking the $Ω_m-σ_8$ degeneracy at the Fisher information level. It further reduces the parameter MSE across our cosmological parameter prior by $1.45\times$ over the best classical mark. The learned latent geometry aligns with the $Ω_m$ and $σ_8$ directions in parameter space, indicating that the contrastive objective recovers the dominant axes of cosmological information. Our approach opens the door to more powerful, interpretable summary statistics for cosmological inference.

Data-adaptive two-sample testing assesses if two samples come from the same distribution, using a discrepancy learned from the data (e.g., via kernel-based feature representations). Such methods typically rely on data splitting to decouple learning from testing and control type I error. However, this paradigm is ill-suited to few-shot settings with severe sample-size imbalance: abundant reference samples are available, while only a handful of query samples arrive. In this paper, we show how this imbalance can be leveraged constructively. Using abundant reference data, we learn reference-dependent representations that summarize salient structure of the reference distribution and provide informative signals for detecting departures. We incorporate a collection of representation families that capture both global and local structure, and adaptively weight them using only reference samples via an uncertainty-guided principle. Theoretically, we establish permutation-based type I error control and show consistency of the aggregated test: as the sample sizes grow, the test power converges to one whenever the representation set contains at least one consistent representation. Empirically, our aggregation achieves strong performance across a range of benchmarks while retaining type I error control.

Most statistical and machine learning methods for directed interactions focus on pairwise effects among variables. Even existing cyclic models represent feedback primarily through node-level dependencies, making large-scale recurrent organization difficult to estimate and compare. This limitation is particularly acute in biological and neural systems, where interactions are highly recurrent and involve many overlapping cycles. We introduce a variational framework for statistical inference on cyclic interactions. Directed interactions are represented as edge flows on a simplicial complex and evolved under an energy-minimizing dynamical system. The resulting dynamics separate transient interaction components from persistent harmonic flows, yielding a low-dimensional cycle space that captures stable recurrent organization. Rather than enumerating individual cycles, the proposed framework represents cyclic interactions as elements of a Hilbert space, enabling projection, averaging, comparison, and population-level statistical inference. We establish theoretical properties of the harmonic projection, including characterization of the cycle space, variance reduction, and population inference. Simulations demonstrate substantially improved recovery of cyclic structure in dense recurrent systems compared with existing directed-interaction methods. Applied to resting-state fMRI from 400 human subjects, the framework reveals reproducible large-scale cyclic organization that is not detectable through edgewise averaging. These results provide a scalable statistical framework for studying recurrent interactions in high-dimensional dynamical systems.

Asymptotic statistical theory is a challenging domain for AI-assisted formalization: its central results mix convergence statements, asymptotic expansions, functional analysis, and regularity conditions that have a large gap from existing infrastructure in Lean 4 formalization. To address these challenges, we propose a hypothesis-disciplined Lean 4 formalization pipeline built from multiple agents: a manager that coordinates seven specialist roles for proof planning, skeleton scaffolding, Mathlib reconnaissance, proof construction, integration, independent review, and audit. The main methodological discipline is the hypothesis-disciplined audit, implemented by the Auditor agent: every main-theorem hypothesis and concept-layer field must be anchored in the source mathematical prose, justified as a Lean encoding adapter, marked as source-implied, or rejected as an unsupported strengthening. Using this workflow, we build a systematic formalization of asymptotic statistical theory, especially the parametric and semi-parametric models' asymptotic distribution and efficiency results. The resulting Lean development is axiom-clean and source-faithful, with Lean-checked and human-audited proofs of core parametric and semi-parametric theorems organized so that theorem-agnostic infrastructure and statistical concept definitions are separated from theorem-specific assembly. The formalization results are available at https://github.com/junwei-lu/Lean-Asymptotic-Statistical-Theory.

We establish the first sharp thresholds for low-degree polynomial tests in planted-vs-planted settings, where the goal is to determine with vanishing error which of two structured planted mechanisms generated the observed data. We prove matching low-degree upper and lower bounds for counting communities in the planted submatrix and planted dense subgraph models. The resulting testing threshold coincides, down to the sharp constant, with the known low-degree recovery threshold. In contrast, the task of weak testing, where the goal is to outperform random guessing, does not have a sharp threshold but rather a smooth transition, which we identify. To prove our results, we develop a framework for planted-vs-planted testing that builds on a latent-variable expansion originating in low-degree recovery and employs new methods to identify and prune non-signal contributions.

Multi-arm bandit algorithms are increasingly used in online platforms, clinical trials, and social science experiments, but valid statistical inference on their performance remains an open challenge. After deploying bandits, a natural question is whether one can construct a confidence interval for its mean reward and assess whether it reliably outperforms a baseline policy. The total reward achieved in any single bandit deployment is random, and deploying a bandit twice on the same population typically yields different reward trajectories due to stochastic rewards. Standard statistical inference methods cannot be used because bandit algorithms introduce complex dependencies in the collected data, which violate the i.i.d. assumption underlying many classical approaches. Moreover, existing inference methods for adaptively collected data only apply to estimands that do not depend on the data-collection algorithm (such as the mean reward under a fixed action). We propose Bandit Simulation for Inference (BSI), a framework that fits a simulator of the bandit environment from observed data--either on-policy or off-policy--and uses it to estimate the mean reward under any evaluation policy, including adaptive blackbox algorithms. BSI formally propagates uncertainty in the estimated simulator parameters into the confidence interval construction. Furthermore, for BSI to be valid, it requires only weak exploration assumptions on the behavior policy and avoids importance weighting. We prove that BSI yields asymptotically valid confidence intervals, and demonstrate empirically that it maintains nominal coverage in settings where standard off-policy evaluation methods fail.

Recent publications have suggested using the Shap- ley value for sensor anomaly/attack localization. We study the performance of such an approach by using mathematically de- fined optimum binary classifiers in the Shapley value calculation. To judge localization performance, we study the ability of the Shapley value of a given sensor observation to determine if that observation is anomalous. First, we prove that for cases with independent sensor observations, an optimized anomaly test using the Shapley value is equivalent to an optimized lower-complexity anomaly test using a single term in the Shapley value calculation, yielding the exact same probability of error. For some popular dependent observation cases involving two sensors, including correlated bivariate Gaussian/Laplacian probability density functions and constant/Gaussian at- tacks/anomalies, we prove that these two tests are fundamentally different, yielding different decision regions and error probabil- ities. Further, we prove that the Shapley value test is sometimes strictly inferior to the other (single term in Shapley calculation) test in certain statistically dependent bivariate Gaussian scenarios with large correlation magnitude and additive attacks/anomalies, while it is strictly superior in others, depending on the sign of the correlation. One can combine these two approaches to obtain a strictly better approach in these cases. These results, which provide the first theoretical statistical analysis of Shapley-based localization, seem very interesting based on the wide acceptance of the Shapley value by many researchers and should encourage further research on this topic. Numerical results are provided which illustrate our findings.

In recent years, graph signal processing has emerged as a powerful framework at the intersection of signal processing and graph theory, providing tools for the analysis of signals defined on nodes while accounting for their relationships represented by edges. These tools have been successfully applied to various settings, including statistical hypothesis testing. In particular, non-parametric approaches based on surrogate generation have been proposed for signals on undirected graphs. However, they are yet to be extended to directed graphs. In this work, we first revisit the notion of stationary graph signals on directed graphs. Specifically, and through the eigendecomposition of the graph shift operator, we define directed graph wide-sense stationary signals. Then, we propose a new framework to generate surrogate graph signals that preserve covariance structure under stationarity assumptions. Null distributions of the test metric can then be constructed from these surrogates and serve as a reference for the empirical data. Finally, we provide guiding examples and an application on real data, in which we compare the performance of our framework with existing techniques for undirected graphs or based on naive permutation, demonstrating feasibility and superiority of the proposed approach.

Uncertainty quantification is essential in high-stakes machine learning tasks. However, one of the principled solutions, conformal prediction, faces challenges under limited local calibration data, privacy constraints, and data heterogeneity. In multi-agent settings, existing works do not simultaneously and satisfactorily address these challenges with guarantees either limited to averages across agents or losing validity in heterogeneous settings. Hence, we propose personalized federated weighted conformal prediction (PFWCP), a framework that combines local density ratio weighting with weighted quantile aggregation to correct for heterogeneity while preserving privacy. The method yields asymptotically valid marginal and calibration-conditional coverage guarantees for each participating agent and supports protocols with one-shot communication. Theoretical analysis presents an adjustment to the coverage variance, governed by an effective sample size expression, which is necessary in the context of weighted conformal prediction, and experiments on synthetic and real datasets show improved calibration quality over state-of-the-art federated conformal baselines.

Two-sample testing is a fundamental tool for detecting distributional differences across scientific domains, but classical tests (including kernel-based tests) can be ineffective on high-dimensional structured data such as images. Recent deep two-sample tests improve sensitivity in these settings by learning informative representations, yet they provide limited insight into which data features drive rejection of the null hypothesis $H_0$. To address this issue, we propose a counterfactual explanation framework for deep two-sample testing that generates sample-level edits moving observations from a source group toward a target group while explicitly reducing the discrepancy measured by the test. Our method combines a diffusion autoencoder with a pretrained deep two-sample test model and optimizes a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) objective in the test model's representation space to produce plausible counterfactuals. We quantify distribution-level effects through changes in the test statistic and the resulting two-sample p-values. We evaluate the method on synthetic 2D shape datasets and two MRI cohorts. Across both settings, the counterfactual transformations consistently increase p-values relative to the original samples, indicating that the edited source set becomes statistically closer to the target distribution under the test. We measure minimality using LPIPS to ensure the counterfactuals remain close to the original samples. The resulting edits provide interpretable evidence of the features associated with the detected group differences. On MRI, the localized changes are consistent with known anatomical differences between cohorts.

Generative machine learning has become an essential tool in theoretical and experimental physics, especially in the context of fast surrogates and density estimators. In this work, we first introduce the underlying framework of modern generative networks and then discuss challenges in quantifying their accuracy, precision, and statistical power.

Score-based diffusion models have demonstrated remarkable empirical success in learning high-dimensional distributions, particularly those exhibiting low-dimensional and multi-modal structures. However, theoretical understanding of their statistical efficiency remains limited. Existing theories typically rely on strong regularity assumptions, such as uniformly bounded densities or globally smooth score functions, which fail to capture such intrinsic structures. In this work, we study the sample complexity of diffusion models for learning distributions supported on a union of low-dimensional subspaces. Assuming that the data distribution within each subspace is subgaussian, we show that diffusion models require at most $\widetilde{O}(\varepsilon^{-k \vee 2})$ samples to achieve $\varepsilon$ error in 1-Wasserstein distance, where $k$ is the intrinsic dimension. This near-optimal convergence rate depends only on the intrinsic dimension and significantly improves upon prior theoretical guarantees that suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Notably, our analysis applies to a broad collection of distributions without imposing smoothness, bounded-density, or log-concavity assumptions. Overall, our results show that diffusion models can statistically adapt to intrinsic low-dimensional structure while naturally accommodating multi-modal data, offering a rigorous theoretical justification for their success in complex high-dimensional learning tasks.

E-values have attracted considerable interest in recent years as flexible tools for enabling anytime-valid and adaptive data analysis. Hypothesis testing is at the core of many of these applications, which can often involve private or sensitive data. In this work, we answer a simple but important question: given two distributions $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$, what is the maximum achievable e-power when testing $X\sim \mathbb{P}^n$ against $X\sim\mathbb{Q}^n$ with e-values that satisfy $\varepsilon$-differential privacy? We characterize the optimal rate for this problem and provide an algorithm which matches it exactly. In the sequential setting, when observations arrive one-by-one and the analyst chooses when to halt, we give matching upper and lower bounds on the stopping times of any private e-process. Numerical experiments confirm the practicality of our algorithms, which require less data than the recently proposed DP-SPRT across a range of sequential testing problems and privacy levels.

Tabular data in knowledge-rich domains often carries a latent prior in the form of Boolean implication relationships (BIRs) between pairs of features. We mine such relationships with a sparse-exception binomial test. The mined implications form a typed directed graph, equivalent to a propositional rule base of 2-literal clauses. We encode this graph as the connectivity of a layered neural network, called BIRDNet, in which each hidden unit corresponds to one mined rule and binds only to its two features. We show two consequences of this design: First, the architecture is sparse by construction: at most $2/d$ of the weights in each BIR layer are active, where $d$ is the input dimension. Second, the model is interpretable: every trained unit keeps a stable symbolic identity, so rules can be read off the network without surrogate models. Unlike most neurosymbolic models, BIRDNet does not consume an external rule base; its structural prior is mined from the data. We evaluate BIRDNet on six transcriptomic and proteomic benchmarks. Our results show that BIRDNet stays within 0.02 AUROC of the strongest dense baseline, at a small accuracy cost, while using up to $96\times$ fewer active parameters than an architecture-matched dense MLP. First-layer rules recover known biological signatures across multiple cancer subtypes and tissue types, including canonical amplicons, lineage-defining co-expression modules, and immune-infiltration markers. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/MAHI-Group/BIRDNet.

The GSM-Symbolic benchmark (Mirzadeh et al., 2025) reported consistent performance drops across 25 Large Language Models (LLMs) when tested on template-generated variants of GSM8K problems, concluding that the models lack genuine reasoning capabilities. We argue that this conclusion rests on shaky statistical ground. Re-evaluating 20 open-weight models using bootstrapped Generalised Linear Mixed Models with per-question random effects, we find that only 8 exhibit statistically significant performance changes under the original prompt format. Moreover, we identify a previously unacknowledged factor: the distribution of integers in problem texts of the main GSM-Symbolic dataset is systematically shifted towards larger values relative to the original GSM8K (K-S statistic = 0.12, p < 0.001), contradicting the original authors' claims. Controlling for this large-number effect accounts for significance in half of the remaining cases. Among models with statistically significant performance deltas, we identify distinct, model-specific behavioural failure profiles -- including fragility of variable binding, arithmetic limitations, and dual-task interference -- underscoring that blanket claims about LLM reasoning risk being both statistically premature and mechanistically misleading.

We introduce a testing-by-betting framework that leverages predictions on unlabeled data to enhance the power of sequential hypothesis testing. Given limited samples from the joint distribution of $(X,Y)$, and additional unlabeled samples from the marginal of $X$, we ask how unlabeled data can be used to hypothesize about the distribution of $Y$, and the conditional distribution of $Y\mid X$. We introduce an e-statistic and use it to construct a sequential test. Under standard distributional assumptions -- label shift or concept shift -- we establish that the test is anytime valid. Furthermore, we show that for binary data, the e-statistic has non-trivial power. Crucially, our approach retains these properties even when the underlying predictions are inaccurate. Through simulations and applications to large language models evaluation, we demonstrate power gains over baseline approaches, including prediction-powered inference. These gains persist even with relatively limited unlabeled data and when predictions have low accuracy due to weak correlation between $X$ and $Y$.

We study efficient differentially private algorithms for estimating monotone statistics, i.e., statistics that are monotone under the addition of new observations. The starting point for our investigation is subsample-and-aggregate: a classical paradigm that partitions the dataset into blocks, estimates the statistic on each block, and then privately aggregates the estimates. While practical and generically applicable, this approach is quite data-hungry. We improve upon this framework for the class of monotone statistics -- compared to subsample-and-aggregate, our algorithms save a factor of $t$ in sample complexity and pay a factor of $e^t$ in running time, where $t>0$ is a tunable parameter. We complement our results with a query-complexity lower bound, showing that our algorithms are essentially optimal for this task. As an application, we obtain improved results for private eigenvalue estimation, private loss estimation, and privately estimating a single parameter of a high-dimensional model, e.g., in linear regression.

We propose KO-PDE-IDENT, a data-driven framework for identifying parsimonious partial differential equations (PDEs) with false discovery rate (FDR) control. PDE discovery from noisy observations is often hindered by extreme multicollinearity among candidate terms, which causes typical sparse-regression methods to select spurious terms. To address this problem, KO-PDE-IDENT initially mines a support set of potential candidate terms via model-X knockoff filters with finite-sample FDR control, then refines and ranks the surviving PDE alternatives. The framework integrates three components. First, knockoff feature statistics are constructed by coupling $\ell_{0}$-constrained adaptive best-subset selection with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), yielding an effective and computationally efficient difference statistic. Second, a recursive feature elimination (RFE) procedure removes terms whose marginal contributions are dispensable and assesses statistical necessity through knockoff-perturbed hypothesis testing. Third, the final model selection is formulated as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, where the optimal governing equation is the alternative that best balances a wide range of criteria such as predictive accuracy, model complexity and coefficient uncertainty. We evaluate KO-PDE-IDENT on five canonical PDEs under severe noise corruption. Empirical results show that our framework can exactly recover the true PDE structure, eliminating false discoveries while retaining all true underlying terms, with low coefficient estimation error.

Generative surveying -- where collections of LLM-based personas provide feedback on messages -- has emerged as a cheap and scalable alternative to traditional market research. However, LLMs are sensitive to small variations in prompt design and conclusions drawn from generative surveys may depend on arbitrary phrasing choices. Controlling for this sensitivity requires including semantically equivalent perturbations in the analysis. In this paper, we show that standard hypothesis tests, including the sign test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, are invalid under a statistical model for generative surveying that includes realistic perturbation structure. We propose a permutation test that is valid under this model and formally characterize the conditions under which standard tests fail. Applying our framework to a simple generative surveying problem, we estimate relevant parameters, characterize the power of the permutation test under realistic conditions, and provide practical guidance on budget allocation across personas, perturbations, and replicates. Finally, we show that both the magnitude and direction of the estimated effect are sensitive to the choice of model, even within the same model family.

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is a foundational algorithm for large-scale statistical learning and stochastic optimization. However, statistical inference based on SGD iterates remains challenging when stochastic gradients have infinite variance, as the relevant limiting distributions depend on unknown nuisance parameters. In this paper, we develop an efficient, model-agnostic methodology for constructing confidence regions from SGD trajectories that applies in both finite- and infinite-variance regimes. The procedure is based on a joint weak convergence result for the Polyak-Ruppert averaged estimator and an empirical second-moment normalizer constructed from stochastic gradients along the SGD trajectory. This joint limit yields a self-normalized statistic in which the leading tail-dependent scaling terms cancel. We then use a subsampling calibration scheme to estimate the relevant critical values, avoiding explicit estimation of tail indices, slowly varying functions, or stable-law parameters. The resulting confidence regions are straightforward to implement and are asymptotically valid under both the finite- and infinite-second-moment regimes. Simulation studies show reliable coverage in various settings, supporting the proposed method as a practical tool for uncertainty quantification in stochastic optimization.

Recent research in time series forecasting frequently investigates the integration of textual and visual modalities with numerical models to better navigate non-stationary environments. Despite delivering solid numerical results, existing multi-modal approaches usually encounter a dilemma: prioritizing the minimization of average errors can result in excessively smooth forecasts that overlook essential fluctuations. To resolve this limitation, we introduce STaT, an innovative multimodal architecture for Symbolic-Temporal-Textual Alignment, which seamlessly unites three synergistic modalities. Specifically, the symbolic modality converts continuous time series into discrete tokens, facilitating the accurate identification of structural patterns and turning points; the temporal modality extracts inherent sequential dependencies; and the textual modality leverages domain semantics to steer the macroscopic forecasting trends. Comprehensive evaluations on eight real-world benchmarks indicate that STaT delivers exceptional performance, enhancing conventional magnitude indicators by up to 8.9% while simultaneously decreasing shape distortion by up to 8.5%.

We give an attribution method for neural combinatorial-optimisation (CO) policies that (i) decomposes a decision by constraint families via LP-relaxation duals, (ii) certifies counterfactuals through a combinatorial feasibility model (implemented as a CSP feasibility-decision model), and (iii) bounds the size of a PAC-sufficient explanation with a Bonferroni-corrected Hoeffding sufficient-subset test along a greedy ordering. Across three CO problems and three seeds, our LP-anchored $Λ$-attribution matches the CF-derived signal at 96.5% on CVRPTW (n_cert=344) and 77.2% on the Orienteering Problem (n_cert=281) vs 75.0% and 35.2% for proxy gradient (paired diffs +0.215 and +0.420; McNemar exact $p \le 10^{-14}$). In the rank-aligned regime of the Flexible Job-Shop Scheduling Problem, both backends agree on every CSP-certified flip (n_cert=59), confirming the no-gain prediction. Bonferroni-PAC subsets average 5.0 nodes per step ($M=70$, $\varepsilon=δ=0.2$, $k_{\max}=25$). Reference implementation: https://github.com/sohaibafifi/neuro-co-cax

Kernel Stein discrepancy (KSD) is among the most popular goodness-of-fit (GoF) measures on general domains with a large number of successful deployments. One of the main applications of KSD is in constructing powerful GoF tests. However, tests relying on the classical U-/V-statistic-based KSD estimators have two major drawbacks. (i) Their runtime scales quadratically in the number of samples. (ii) Their asymptotic null distribution is computationally intractable in most cases, typically handled by bootstrapping. While it is known that the Nyström method permits accelerating KSD estimation with no loss of statistical accuracy under mild conditions, to the best of our knowledge, the fundamental question of its impact on bootstrap-based GoF testing is open; resolving this question is the focus of the current paper. In particular, we prove that the key properties of the quadratic-time bootstrapped KSD-based GoF test (asymptotic level and local consistency) are preserved by its Nyström acceleration. We numerically demonstrate the efficiency of the accelerated KSD estimator and bootstrap in the context of GoF testing of spherical and functional data. Our numerical results show that the Nyström-accelerated method performs statistically on-par with the quadratic-time approach, while requiring substantially smaller runtime.

We study the sample complexity of robust binary hypothesis testing under three standard contamination models: $\varepsilon$-additive (Huber), $\varepsilon$-subtractive, and $\varepsilon$-total variation (TV), denoted by $n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon)$, $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon)$, and $n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon)$, respectively. For subtractive contamination, we show that least favourable distributions exist and provide explicit formulas for the same, bringing this model in line with the classical Huber and TV models. Next we show that in all three models, sample complexity may be highly unstable in the contamination parameter $\varepsilon$, increasing by polynomial factors even for $o(\varepsilon)$ perturbations. Similarly, there may be polynomial factor gaps between the sample complexities when $\varepsilon$ is known exactly versus when it is known up to $o(\varepsilon)$ error. Despite the instability of the sample complexity in all models, we show that the sample complexities across models are comparable up to constant-factor rescaling of $\varepsilon$. Specifically, for any fixed $δ_0>0$, the following hold for all distributions $p$ and $q$: (i) $n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(2\varepsilon)$, (ii) $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}((2+δ_0)\varepsilon)$, and (iii) $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}((1+δ_0)\varepsilon)$, and the scaling constants are tight. Finally, we extend our results to adaptive versions of the contamination models.

Modern Artificial Intelligence achieves remarkable predictive power by optimizing statistical risk functionals over vast corpora. Yet a gap separates this from genuine intelligence: the inability to distinguish correlation from causation. This paper argues that causal inference (identifying mechanisms invariant under intervention) is AI's indispensable statistical conscience. Without causal grounding, AI systems are correlation machines: powerful in familiar domains, brittle under distribution shift, and biased in high-stakes settings. Three contributions develop this argument. First, a Statistical Necessity Theorem for Causal Generalization: any algorithm achieving out-of-distribution generalization must encode causal structure, formalizing the distinction between prediction P(Y|X) and intelligence P(Y|do(X)). Second, a unified framework connects Pearl's do-calculus, the Potential Outcomes framework, Double Machine Learning, and Invariant Risk Minimization as a family of Causal Statistical Estimators, each identifying interventional distributions under different assumptions. Third, three AI failure modes (hallucination in large language models, reward hacking in reinforcement learning from human feedback, and degradation under distribution shift) are manifestations of causal blindness, each admitting a principled statistical remedy. Trustworthy AI is, at its core, a problem of causal statistics. The statistical community is not merely equipped to solve it -- it is the only community with the foundational tools to do so rigorously.

Comprehensive evaluation of machine learning models is the key to make sure that they perform as robustly and consistently as desired. In order to summarize the experimental results and pick a winner, Critical Difference (CD) diagrams are used. Standard CD diagrams rely on discrete ranks, discarding the magnitude of performance gaps between models, raising an issue which we call magnitude-blindness. In order to address this issue, we propose Magnitude-Aware Rank Statistics (MARS) that incorporates a relative margin coefficient as a weight for the discrete ranks. This coefficient scales ranks based on the distance between the best and worst performers, with a dynamic projection to handle boundary cases. Followed by the calculation of a CD value, MARS results in a more realistic statistical representation of differences of model performances and more insights on how methods actually perform in vast and extensive experimental settings.

We introduce the problem of \emph{entropy equivalence testing} for probability distributions, a relaxation of the well-studied closeness testing problem, where the distribution testing algorithm is now only required to distinguish, given samples from two unknown distributions $p,q$ and a parameter $\varepsilon \in(0,1/2]$, between $p=q$ and $|H(p)-H(q)| \geq \varepsilon$ (where $H$ denotes the Shannon entropy). We provide a time- and sample-efficient algorithm for this task, showing that the optimal sample complexity for this task can be significantly lower than that of closeness testing. As an application, we leverage this result to provide the first non-trivial testing algorithm for (standard) closeness of low-degree \emph{Bayesian networks}, which significantly improves on either the sample or time complexity of a baseline based on full learning.

Deep generative models offer a natural foundation for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection, yet prior work has shown that their assigned likelihoods are notoriously unreliable indicators for in- vs out-of-distribution data. In this paper, we address this problem by leveraging the diffeomorphic and mass-preserving properties of continuous normalising flows. Our analysis shows that OOD samples are mapped to noise samples that are highly atypical under the noise prior in ways not captured by the likelihood. Based on this observation, we propose a new method -- Signal in the Noise (SITN) -- for OOD detection on the single-sample level. SITN requires no access to OOD data, incurs minimal computational overhead, and provides strict control of false positive rates. Comprehensive evaluations through standard benchmarks and synthetic perturbations highlight the method's effectiveness and the absence of the complexity bias inherent to likelihood-based methods.

The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence has given rise to an interactive learning environment, where model parameters are continuously updated using not only data generated by natural processes, but also synthetic outputs produced by other models. This paradigm introduces two major challenges: (1) training data are no longer drawn exclusively from the target population, undermining a core assumption of classical statistical learning, and (2) model training processes become inherently correlated, as models interact with one another through repeated exposure to each other's synthetic outputs in a potentially complex manner. Establishing reliable statistical inference in such structured interactive learning environments therefore remains an important open problem. In particular, there is growing concern about model collapse, a phenomenon in which the performance of generative models progressively degrades as they are trained on synthetic data produced by earlier model generations. Prior work on model collapse primarily focuses on a single model trained on its own output, failing to capture model performance in multi-model interactive settings. In this work, we fill this gap by investigating the performance of generative models in an interactive learning environment with general interaction patterns. In particular, we formalize model interactions using directed graphs and show that the occurrence of model collapse depends critically on the topology of the interaction graph. We further derive an explicit necessary and sufficient condition characterizing when model collapse occurs, and establish finite-sample results for linear regression and asymptotic guarantees for general M-estimators. We support our theoretical findings through extensive numerical experiments.

Synthetic sonar datasets offer a scalable alternative to costly real-world acquisition, yet their utility remains limited by the absence of rigorous quantitative validation. We present ACOUSIM (ACOustic SIMulation and Validation Platform), a physics-informed framework that evaluates the statistical alignment between synthetic and real sonar imagery without relying on generative models. A Gazebo-based environment generates sonar-like images by explicitly controlling seabed texture, illumination-driven shadowing, platform altitude, and noise. Realism is quantified against two public sonar datasets, SeabedObjects-KLSG-II and Sonar Common Target Detection (SCTD), using global intensity and local texture (LBP) distributions assessed via Kullback-Leibler divergence, Jensen-Shannon divergence, and Earth Mover's Distance. Results show strong texture alignment (KL < 0.07) across all classes, with plane-class intensity alignment outperforming ship-class due to shadow geometry complexity. ACOUSIM establishes a reproducible, distribution-level baseline for sim-to-real sonar evaluation and directly supports reliable dataset validation for underwater image analysis.

Quantization is essential for reducing the computational cost and memory usage of deep neural networks, enabling efficient inference on low-precision hardware. Despite the growing adoption of uniform and floating-point quantization schemes, selecting optimal quantization parameters remains a key challenge, particularly for diverse data distributions encountered during training and inference. This work presents a novel statistical error analysis framework for uniform and floating-point quantization, providing theoretical insight into error behavior across quantization configurations. Building on this analysis, we propose iterative quantizers designed for arbitrary data distributions and analytic quantizers tailored for Gaussian-like weight distributions. These methods enable efficient, low-error quantization suitable for both activations and weights. We incorporate our quantizers into quantization-aware training and evaluate them across integer and floating-point formats. Experiments demonstrate improved accuracy and stability, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach for training low-precision neural networks.

Aggregate object detection metrics inherently mask catastrophic and repeatable failures in operationally critical, long-tail minority classes. This paper formally defines this pervasive vulnerability as the Hard-Category Reliability Problem (HCRP): the fundamental architectural challenge of strictly rectifying vulnerable categories without compromising the performance boundaries of stable classes under stringent protocols. To systematically dismantle this limitation, we propose Error-Decomposed Class-Conditional Fusion (ED-CCF), an elegant decision-layer inference framework. Diverging from heuristic global post-processing, ED-CCF projects predictions into a sophisticated quad-state error taxonomy, dynamically activating calibration pathways exclusively upon rigorous empirical justification. On a highly constrained 600-image validation benchmark, isolating cz as the critical vulnerability (HCEC=0.86, BSR=0.14), our framework achieves a targeted breakthrough: it elevates cz mAP50 from 0.089343 to 0.109353 (a massive +22.4% relative surge) while flawlessly preserving the Pareto optimality of global stability (raising all mAP50 from 0.581925 to 0.584864). Backed by exhaustive validation across 50 paired subset trials demonstrating an overwhelming 96% win rate and strict Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon significance (p<0.05), this work fundamentally redefines output-level fusion as an auditable, statistically guaranteed paradigm for safety-critical visual perception.

Large-scale hypothesis testing is central to modern science, where controlling the False Discovery Rate (FDR) has become the standard approach to managing false positives across many simultaneous tests. Hypotheses rarely exist in isolation; they often exhibit structure through proximity, connectivity, or hierarchy. This structure represents both a challenge and an opportunity: while classical methods treat these dependencies as obstacles requiring conservative correction, leveraging them can substantially increase discovery power. Here, we reframe structured FDR control as a regularized learning problem. By optimizing within a suitable Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS), we introduce a framework that unifies continuous domains, graphs, and hierarchies under a single algorithm through kernel choice alone. This formulation enables smooth solutions in place of the piecewise-constant fits of prior methods, principled likelihood-based hyperparameter selection rather than heuristic tuning, and inference at unobserved locations which in turn supports sample-efficient experimental design. Building on this estimator, we provide two decision rules which we prove to control the FDR. We validate our method on two sources: spatial locations derived from high-dimensional real-world datasets, and a differential gene expression task utilizing protein-protein interaction graphs.

Machine learning systems increasingly face requirements to forget not only individual data points, but entire domains of information, such as toxic language, copyrighted corpora, or demographic biases. This raises a fundamental dilemma of statistical-computational tradeoffs: removing all samples from an unwanted domain may be computationally prohibitive, while randomly removing a subset may not provide distribution-level statistical guarantees. We propose a statistical framework for distributional unlearning, in which domains are modeled as probability distributions, and the goal is to remove a carefully chosen subset of samples that reduces the effect of an unwanted distribution while preserving performance on a desired one. We formalize this using a hypothesis test of the edited data with the desired and unwanted domains, leading to an interpretable and robust criterion for selecting samples to remove. Within this statistical framework, we characterize the fundamental region of the allowable edited data distributions and the removal-preservation Pareto frontier for a broad class of distribution families. This includes parametric families such as shifted Gaussians of arbitrary dimension, a one-dimensional location family with log-concave noise, and the one-dimensional Poisson family. It also includes nonparametric families such as the Gaussian white noise model, a canonical model for nonparametric regression. We prove composition rules that describe how distributional unlearning behaves across multimodal unwanted domains, and introduce a central-limit behavior for the removal-preservation baselines when composing a large number of such families. Finally, we provide finite sample guarantees by providing Pareto frontiers for some selection algorithms, and observe an information-computation gap.

Deep learning excels at prediction but often lacks finite-sample guarantees and calibrated uncertainty; RKHS (Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space)-based methods provide those guarantees but struggle to adapt in high dimensions. We propose Wahkon, a deep RKHS superposition network that unifies Kolmogorov's superposition principle with RKHS regularization in the smoothing-spline tradition of Wahba. This yields a finite-dimensional deep representer theorem that makes training tractable and provides explicit layerwise complexity control. We show the penalized estimator is exactly the MAP (maximum a posteriori) estimate under a hierarchical Gaussian-process prior, extending the spline/GP duality to deep compositions. Using metric-entropy arguments, we establish minimax-optimal convergence rates under mild smoothness and clarify how depth and width trade off with regularity. Empirically, Wahkon outperforms multilayer perceptrons, Neural Tangent Kernels, and Kolmogorov--Arnold Networks across simulation benchmarks and a single-cell CITE-seq study. By unifying Kolmogorov's superposition principle with RKHS regularization, Wahkon delivers accuracy, interpretability, and statistical rigor in a single framework.

During thDuring the last few years, the term Mechanistic Interpretability, a specific area, under the umbrella of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), has been introduced, to explain the decisions made by complex machine learning (ML) models in critical systems like UAV intrusion detection systems (UAVIDS). In this paper, we apply best-practices for data pre-processing and examine a wide range of tree-ensembles, deep neural networks, hybrid stacking models and the latest ensemble neural networks to detect intrusions in UAV, with stratified 10-fold cross validation. With our top-performing model, XGBoost, we proceed to Shapley Additive explanations (SHAP), to analyze the global and local feature importances and understand which features, each attack targets, to mimic normal traffic and where the misclassifications occur. Furthermore a distribution analysis follows, by visually comparing violin plots and the curves of kernel density estimations. With the Westfall-Young permutation test for multiple comparisons, the Bandwidth optimization of the KDEs and the selection of Jensen-Shannon Distance for the test, we discover the true causes of false predictions, observed in Wormhole and Blackhole attacks in UAVIDS-2025. The findings provide robust, reliable and explainable models for UAV intrusion detection, along with statistical insights, which capture and clarify the masked nature of the attacks, regarding the challenge of Density Support Intersection, between these attacks, in this dataset.

Online Multiple Testing (OMT), a fundamental pillar of sequential statistical inference, traditionally evaluates the False Discovery Rate (FDR) and statistical power in isolation, obscuring the highly asymmetric costs of false positives and false negatives in modern automated pipelines. To unify this evaluation, we introduce $\textit{Weighted Regret}$. Under this metric, we prove the $\textit{Duality of Regret Conservation}$: purely deterministic procedures ensuring strict FDR control inevitably incur an $Ω(T)$ linear regret penalty, as threshold depletion during signal-sparse cold starts forces massive false negatives. Tailored for exogenous testing streams, we propose Decoupled-OMT (DOMT) as a baseline-agnostic meta-wrapper. By incorporating a history-decoupled, strictly non-negative random perturbation, DOMT rescues purely deterministic baselines from severe threshold depletion. Crucially, it preserves exact asymptotic safety in stationary environments and rigorously bounds finite-sample error inflation during cold-starts. Guaranteeing zero additional false negatives, it yields an order-optimal $Ω(\sqrt{T})$ regret reduction in bursty environments, with a derived ``Cold-Start Tax'' characterizing the exact phase transition of algorithmic superiority. Experiments validate that DOMT consistently curtails empirical weighted regret, achieving an order-optimal sublinear mitigation of threshold depletion to navigate the non-stationary Pareto frontier.

Experimental design has emerged as a powerful approach for improving the sample efficiency of A/B testing, yet existing designs rely critically on correctly specified models. We study robust sequential experimental design under model misspecification and develop a unified framework that covers both contextual bandit and dynamic settings. Theoretically, we prove that our design bounds the worst-case mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect. Empirically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach using synthetic and real-world datasets from a leading technology company.

Prediction sets provide a theoretically grounded framework for quantifying uncertainty in machine learning models. Adapting them to structured generation tasks, in particular, large language model (LLM) based code generation, remains a challenging problem. An existing attempt proposes PAC prediction sets but is limited by its strong monotonicity assumption on risk and single-label classification framework, which severely limits the space of candidate programs and cannot accommodate the multiple valid outputs inherent to code generation. To address these limitations, we propose an approach RisCoSet that leverages multiple hypothesis testing to construct risk-controlling predictions for LLM-based code generation. Given a trained code generation model, we produce a prediction set represented by a partial program, which is guaranteed to contain a correct solution with high confidence. Extensive experiments on three LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. For instance, compared with the state-of-the-art, our method can significantly reduce the code removal by up to 24.5%, at the same level of risk.

$U$-statistics play a central role in statistical inference. In many modern applications, however, acquiring the labels required for $U$-statistics is costly. Motivated by recent advances in active inference, we develop an active inference framework for $U$-statistics that selectively queries informative labels to improve estimation efficiency under a fixed labeling budget, while preserving valid statistical inference. Our approach is built on the augmented inverse probability weighting $U$-statistic, which is designed to incorporate the sampling rule and machine learning predictions. We characterize the optimal sampling rule that minimizes its variance and design practical sampling strategies. We further extend the framework to $U$-statistic-based empirical risk minimization. Experiments on real datasets demonstrate substantial gains in estimation efficiency over baseline methods, while maintaining target coverage.

Classical deep learning typically operates on individual cases. Despite its success, real-world usage often requires repeated inference to estimate statistical quantities for complex decision-making tasks involving uncertainty or extreme-value analysis, resulting in substantial latency. We introduce neural statistical functions, a new family of models learned from pre-trained single-sample predictors and scattered data samples, which can directly infer statistics over continuous operating condition ranges without explicit sampling. By introducing the notion of prefix statistics, we transform and unify diverse statistical functions (e.g., integrals, quantiles, and maxima) into an interval-conditional framework, in which a principled identity between the prefix statistics and the individual-case regression serves as the learning objective. Neural statistical functions achieve strong performance in estimating essential statistics of complex physical processes, including accumulated energy in dynamical systems, quantiles of aerodynamic responses, and maximum stress in crash processes, while achieving up to a 100$\times$ reduction in model evaluations.

This paper establishes a rigorous measurement science for AI agent reliability, providing a foundational framework for quantifying consistency under semantically preserving perturbations. By leveraging $U$-statistics for output-level reliability and kernel-based metrics for trajectory-level stability, we offer a principled approach to evaluating agents across diverse operating conditions. Our proposal highlights the important distinction between the core capability and execution robustness of an agent, showing that minor task-level variations can induce complete strategy breakdowns despite the agent possessing the requisite knowledge for the task. We validate our framework through extensive experiments on three agentic benchmarks, demonstrating that trajectory-level consistency metrics provide far greater diagnostic sensitivity than traditional pass@1 rates. By providing the mathematical tools to isolate where and why agents deviate, we enable the identification and rectification of architectural concerns that hinder the deployment of agents in high-stakes, real-world environments.

Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly used in macroeconomics, but their analysis still often relies on ad hoc Monte Carlo campaigns with heterogeneous statistical effort across parameter settings. We show how statistical model checking (SMC), implemented through MultiVeStA, can provide a principled analysis layer for a realistic macroeconomic ABM without rewriting the simulator in a dedicated formalism. Our case study is the heuristic-switching Keynes+Schumpeter(K+S) model, analysed hrough a transient sensitivity campaign over one-parameter sweeps, two macro observables (unemployment and GDP growth), and one auxiliary micro-level probe (market share) on the post-warmup phase of a 600-step horizon. The analysis is driven by reusable temporal queries, observable-specific precision targets, and confidence-based stopping rules that automatically determine the simulation effort required by each configuration. Results show a clear contrast across parameter families: macro-financial and structural sweeps produce the strongest transient effects, whereas several heuristic-rule sweeps remain much weaker under the same precision policy. More broadly, the paper shows that SMC can support reproducible and informative quantitative analysis of substantively rich economic ABMs, while making uncertainty estimates and simulation cost explicit parts of the reported results.

Measuring the breadth of a word's meaning, or its spread across contexts, has become feasible with contextualized token embeddings. A word type can be represented as a cloud of token vectors, with dispersion-based statistics serving as proxies for contextual diversity (Nagata and Tanaka-Ishii, ACL2025). These measurements are useful for deciding appropriate sense distinctions when constructing thesauri and domain-specific dictionaries. However, when comparing the breadth of two word types, naive hypothesis testing on dispersion can be misleading: differences in semantic direction can masquerade as dispersion differences, inflating Type-I error and yielding "statistically significant" outcomes even when there is no true breadth difference. This is problematic because significance testing should distinguish genuine effects from incidental fluctuations in small-difference regimes. We propose a Householder-aligned permutation test to isolate dispersion differences from directional differences. Our method applies a single Householder reflection to align the mean directions of the two word types and then performs a permutation test on the aligned token clouds, yielding calibrated, non-parametric p-values. For practicality, we introduce a GPU-oriented implementation that batches permutations and linear algebra operations. Empirically, our alignment reduced Type-I error by 32.5% while preserving sensitivity to genuine breadth differences, and achieved a 23x speedup over the CPU baseline.

Distributional treatment effects can be invisible to means: a treatment may preserve average outcomes while changing tails, modes, dispersion, or rare-event probabilities. Kernel tests can detect discrepancies between interventional outcome laws, but global tests do not reveal where the laws differ. We propose DR-ME, to our knowledge the first semiparametrically efficient finite-location test for interpretable distributional treatment effects. DR-ME evaluates an interventional kernel witness at learned outcome locations, returning causal-discrepancy coordinates rather than only a global rejection. From observational data, we derive orthogonal doubly robust kernel features whose centered oracle form is the canonical gradient of this finite witness. For fixed locations, we characterize the local testing limit: DR-ME is chi-square calibrated under the null, has noncentral chi-square local power, and uses the covariance whitening that optimizes local signal-to-noise for discrepancies visible through the selected coordinates. This efficient local-power geometry yields a principled location-learning criterion, with sample splitting preserving post-selection validity. Experiments show near-nominal type-I error, competitive power against global doubly robust kernel tests, and interpretable learned locations that localize distributional effects in a semi-synthetic medical-imaging study.

We define susceptibilities as a measure of the response of an observable quantity of a parameterized statistical model to a perturbation of the data for a general class of observables. We define estimators for these susceptibilities as statistics in a sequence of n data-points and prove that these estimators are consistent and asymptotically unbiased in the large n regime.

Belief functions are a powerful and popular framework for the mathematical characterisation of uncertainty, in particular in situations in which lack of data renders learning a probability distribution for the problem impractical. The first step in a reasoning chain based on belief functions is inference: how to learn a belief measure from the available data. In this survey we focus, in particular, on making inference from statistical data, and review the most significant contributions in the area.

A major bottleneck in characterizing the failure modes of generative AI systems is the cost and time of annotation and evaluation. Consequently, adaptive testing paradigms have gained popularity, where one opportunistically decides which cases and how many to annotate based on past results. While this framework is highly practical, its extreme flexibility makes it difficult to draw statistically rigorous conclusions, as it violates classical assumptions: the number of observations is typically limited (often 10 to 50 cases) and decisions regarding sampling and stopping are made in the midst of data collection rather than based a pre-specified rule. To characterize what statistical inferences can be drawn from highly adaptive audits, we introduce a hypothesis testing framework from two 'dueling' perspectives: (i) the model's null that asserts there is no failure mode with performance below a target threshold versus (ii) the auditor's null that asserts they have a sampling strategy that will uncover a failure mode. Leveraging Safe Anytime-Valid Inference (SAVI), we formalize the auditor as conducting 'testing by betting', which translates into simultaneous e-processes for testing the dueling null hypotheses. Furthermore, if the auditor is sufficiently powerful, we prove that these two hypotheses are asymptotically inverses of each other, in that passage of a stringent audit does in fact certify the AI system as being globally robust. Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed testing procedures maintain anytime-valid type-I error control, outperform pre-specified testing methods, and can reach statistically rigorous conclusions sometimes with as few as 20 observations.

The Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) is a cornerstone statistic for nonparametric two-sample testing, but its test power is dictated entirely by the chosen kernel. Because any fixed kernel inherently fails to distinguish certain distributions, the kernel must be dynamically optimized. However, data-driven optimization violates the foundational i.i.d. assumption, forcing a strict trade-off in existing frameworks. Ratio criteria ignore this dependence, inducing overfitting and variance collapse on rich kernel classes. Conversely, aggregation methods bypass the dependence using finite grids, but this strategy cannot scale to continuous search spaces like deep kernels. To break this dichotomy, we establish data-driven kernel selection as a model selection problem. We propose Complexity-Penalized MMD (CP-MMD), a criterion derived by applying the two-sample uniform concentration inequality of preceding works to the post-optimization MMD problem. The resulting penalty bounds the empirical MMD by the complexity of the kernel search space, mathematically absorbing the cost of optimization, so that CP-MMD enables direct, grid-free maximization over continuous parametric classes, including scalar bandwidths, polynomial feature bandwidths, and deep network parameters. By formally accounting for optimization complexity, we prove that CP-MMD maximizes true test power while ensuring unconditional Type-I validity. Consequently, CP-MMD enables grid-free kernel selection across linear, polynomial-feature, and deep regimes, matching or exceeding state-of-the-art test power.

Regulatory approval of products in high-stakes domains such as drug development requires statistical evidence of safety and efficacy through large-scale randomized controlled trials. However, the high financial cost of these trials may deter developers who lack absolute certainty in their product's efficacy, ultimately stifling the development of `moonshot' products that could offer high social utility. To address this inefficiency, in this paper, we introduce a statistical protocol for experimentation where the product developer (the agent) conducts a randomized controlled trial sequentially and the regulator (the principal) partially subsidizes its cost. By modeling the protocol using a belief Markov decision process, we show that the agent's optimal strategy can be found efficiently using dynamic programming. Further, we show that the social utility is a piecewise linear and convex function over the subsidy level the principal selects, and thus the socially optimal subsidy can also be found efficiently using divide-and-conquer. Simulation experiments using publicly available data on antibiotic development and approval demonstrate that our statistical protocol can be used to increase social utility by more than 35$$\% relative to standard, non-sequential protocols.

As learning systems increasingly shape everyday decisions, Algorithmic Collective Action (ACA), i.e., users coordinating changes to shared data to steer model behavior, offers a complement to regulator-side policy and corporate model design. Real-world collective actions have traditionally been decentralized and fragmented into multiple collectives, despite sharing overarching objectives, with each collective differing in size, strategy, and actionable goals. However, most of the ACA literature focuses on single collective settings. To address this, we propose the first comprehensive statistical framework for ACA with multiple collectives acting on the same system. In particular, we focus on collective action in classification, studying how multiple collectives can influence a classifier's behavior. We provide quantitative statistical bounds on the success of the collectives, considering the role and the interplay of the collectives' sizes and the alignment of their goals. We make such bounds computable by each collective with only partial knowledge of other collectives' sizes and strategies. Finally, we numerically illustrate our framework on simulations inspired by interventions for climate adaptation in smart cities, demonstrating the usefulness of our bounds.

Large language models often improve reasoning by sampling multiple outputs and aggregating their final answers, but precise and efficient control of error levels remains a challenging task. In particular, deciding when to stop sampling remains difficult when the stopping rule is data-dependent and the set of possible answers is not known in advance. We study anytime-valid certification of a prespecified target answer as the unique mode of the model's response distribution, a guarantee distinct from answer correctness. We propose the Certification by Intersection-union Testing with E-processes (CITE) algorithm, which provably controls false certification at any prescribed level under arbitrary data-driven stopping, without requiring prior knowledge of the answer category set. We also prove an category-set-size-free stopping-time rate, establish matching minimax lower bounds up to constants in the main regime, and extend the construction to confidence-weighted voting. Simulations and LLM self-consistency experiments show empirical error control and improved certification in diffuse-tail settings.

The representativeness of synthetic pre-crash scenarios is crucial for assessing the safety impact of Driving Automation Systems through virtual simulations. However, a gap remains in the robust evaluation of synthetic pre-crash scenarios' practical equivalence to their real-world counterparts; that is, whether they are similar enough for the intended assessment purpose. Conventional significance testing is inadequate, as it focuses on detecting differences rather than establishing practical equivalence. This study addresses the research gap by extending our previous work on a Bayesian Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE)-based equivalence testing framework by introducing a binning-based approach to define appropriate statistics and equivalence criteria. Two binning-based statistics are proposed to measure practically meaningful distributional differences between datasets in the context of safety impact assessment. The framework's applicability is demonstrated through a case study, which tests the practical equivalence of two synthetic rear-end pre-crash datasets with a previously developed reference dataset in the context of the safety impact assessment of an Automatic Emergency Braking system. The results show that the framework provides informative quantitative assessments of practical equivalence as well as diagnostic insights into the divergence of datasets. Although the demonstration focuses on rear-end pre-crash scenarios, the framework is generic and extensible to broader validation contexts, providing an interpretable and principled basis for practical equivalence assessment across diverse synthetic data applications.