Daily Papers

Generative AI coding agents are entering the open-source supply chain, yet their diverse and often invisible traces leave their prevalence poorly understood. We introduce a multi-layered detection framework that integrates configuration-file scanning, commit-message analysis, author-identity matching, and bot-signature lookup across World of Code (180M+ Git repositories), classifying agent traces into four behavioral types. No single method captures more than a fraction of activity: multi-method detection identifies 850,157 Claude Code commits in one snapshot, of which bot-account lookup_the signal most adoption studies rely on_recovers only 28,154 (3.3%), a 30x relative-recall gap, so single-signal prevalence estimates are biased low by at least this factor. Every detection pattern is hand-validated (495 labels) with per-cell precision and Wilson confidence intervals. Across snapshots from December 2024 to April 2026, commit-attributed agents generate over 320,000 commits per month; Claude Code leads (886,122 commits across 17,295 projects) and dominates silent, configuration-file-only adoption (21,078 projects). Compared against an independent pull-request census (AIDev), the two channels capture nearly disjoint agent populations_a PR census misses 79% of commit-detected Claude Code adopters and essentially all Codex adopters_and different kinds of work: PR-deployed cloud agents (Codex, Cursor) surface as feature work, while commit-deployed in-editor agents (Claude Code, OpenHands, Aider) surface as maintenance. The observed work profile follows deployment and detection mode rather than the tool itself, so no single channel is representative.

Evaluating Computer Use Agents (CUAs) on interactive environments is fraught with methodological pitfalls that the field has yet to systematically address. We show that a 1MB replay script that blindly executes a recorded action sequence without ever observing the screen outperforms frontier models on prominent static benchmarks, and prove that its expected success rate is exactly equal to the source agent's pass@k in deterministic environments. We trace this and other failures to two root causes: non-principled environment design (static, unsandboxed, or unreliably verified environments) and non-principled evaluation methodology (naive aggregation and misuse of pass@k for stateful UI interactions). To address the first, we propose PRISM, five design principles for CUA environments (privileged verification, realistic environments, integrity-checked configurations, sandboxed execution, and multifactorial variability) and instantiate them in DigiWorld, a benchmark of 15 realistic sandboxed mobile applications able to evaluate agents in over 3.2 million verified unique configurations. To address the second, we develop an aggregation framework pairing Wilson score intervals with hierarchical bootstrap, producing confidence intervals that correctly account for the nested structure of CUA benchmarks, as we empirically demonstrate. All together, we show that principled environment design and rigorous evaluation methodology are not optional refinements but prerequisites for meaningful CUA research.

Normalised citation counts are routinely used to assess the average impact of research groups or nations. There is controversy over whether confidence intervals for them are theoretically valid or practically useful. In response, this article introduces the concept of a group's underlying research capability to produce impactful research. It then investigates whether confidence intervals could delimit the underlying capability of a group in practice. From 123120 confidence interval comparisons for the average citation impact of the national outputs of ten countries within 36 individual large monodisciplinary journals, moderately fewer than 95% of subsequent indicator values fall within 95% confidence intervals from prior years, with the percentage declining over time. This is consistent with confidence intervals effectively delimiting the research capability of a group, although it does not prove that this is the cause of the results. The results are unaffected by whether internationally collaborative articles are included.

This paper argues for the widest possible use of bootstrap confidence intervals for comparing NLP system performances instead of the state-of-the-art status (SOTA) and statistical significance testing. Their main benefits are to draw attention to the difference in performance between two systems and to help assessing the degree of superiority of one system over another. Two cases studies, one comparing several systems and the other based on a K-fold cross-validation procedure, illustrate these benefits. A python module for obtaining these confidence intervals as well as a second function implementing the Fisher-Pitman test for paired samples are freely available on PyPi.

Consistently checking the statistical significance of experimental results is one of the mandatory methodological steps to address the so-called "reproducibility crisis" in deep reinforcement learning. In this tutorial paper, we explain how the number of random seeds relates to the probabilities of statistical errors. For both the t-test and the bootstrap confidence interval test, we recall theoretical guidelines to determine the number of random seeds one should use to provide a statistically significant comparison of the performance of two algorithms. Finally, we discuss the influence of deviations from the assumptions usually made by statistical tests. We show that they can lead to inaccurate evaluations of statistical errors and provide guidelines to counter these negative effects. We make our code available to perform the tests.

Algorithms such as Differentially Private SGD enable training machine learning models with formal privacy guarantees. However, there is a discrepancy between the protection that such algorithms guarantee in theory and the protection they afford in practice. An emerging strand of work empirically estimates the protection afforded by differentially private training as a confidence interval for the privacy budget varepsilon spent on training a model. Existing approaches derive confidence intervals for varepsilon from confidence intervals for the false positive and false negative rates of membership inference attacks. Unfortunately, obtaining narrow high-confidence intervals for epsilon using this method requires an impractically large sample size and training as many models as samples. We propose a novel Bayesian method that greatly reduces sample size, and adapt and validate a heuristic to draw more than one sample per trained model. Our Bayesian method exploits the hypothesis testing interpretation of differential privacy to obtain a posterior for varepsilon (not just a confidence interval) from the joint posterior of the false positive and false negative rates of membership inference attacks. For the same sample size and confidence, we derive confidence intervals for varepsilon around 40% narrower than prior work. The heuristic, which we adapt from label-only DP, can be used to further reduce the number of trained models needed to get enough samples by up to 2 orders of magnitude.

Recent advances in machine learning have significantly improved prediction accuracy in various applications. However, ensuring the calibration of probabilistic predictions remains a significant challenge. Despite efforts to enhance model calibration, the rigorous statistical evaluation of model calibration remains less explored. In this work, we develop confidence intervals the ell_2 Expected Calibration Error (ECE). We consider top-1-to-k calibration, which includes both the popular notion of confidence calibration as well as full calibration. For a debiased estimator of the ECE, we show asymptotic normality, but with different convergence rates and asymptotic variances for calibrated and miscalibrated models. We develop methods to construct asymptotically valid confidence intervals for the ECE, accounting for this behavior as well as non-negativity. Our theoretical findings are supported through extensive experiments, showing that our methods produce valid confidence intervals with shorter lengths compared to those obtained by resampling-based methods.

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues as any LLM. We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap. A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions, each licensed by an explicit justification, whether that be a citation, computation, or problem-given fact, and every transition is independently auditable. The foundational invariant is completeness of change: every difference between consecutive proof states must be accounted for, so hidden premises surface as unlicensed mutations rather than passing silently. On HLE-Verified Gold (185 text-only expert problems), Theoria certifies 105 at 91.4% strict precision (Wilson 95% CI [84.5%, 95.4%]). Every certification produces a human readable proof trace in which each step can be independently challenged. Holistic LLM judges achieve comparable precision at matched coverage but fail on different problems (Jaccard 0.14-0.36), making the approaches complementary. On 95 adversarial poisoned proofs across 15 domains, structured judges catch 94.7% versus 83.2% for holistic judging (p= 0.0017). The overall 11.5 pp gap concentrates in hidden premises (90.6% vs. 62.5%, a 28 pp difference) and fabricated citations (100% vs. 90%), the error classes where the formal analysis predicts an advantage; performance is identical on arithmetic and theorem-misapplication errors, where no advantage is predicted. On GPQA Diamond (n= 65), certified precision is 97.1% (Wilson CI [85.1%, 99.5%]).

A/B tests are typically analyzed via frequentist p-values and confidence intervals; but these inferences are wholly unreliable if users endogenously choose samples sizes by *continuously monitoring* their tests. We define *always valid* p-values and confidence intervals that let users try to take advantage of data as fast as it becomes available, providing valid statistical inference whenever they make their decision. Always valid inference can be interpreted as a natural interface for a sequential hypothesis test, which empowers users to implement a modified test tailored to them. In particular, we show in an appropriate sense that the measures we develop tradeoff sample size and power efficiently, despite a lack of prior knowledge of the user's relative preference between these two goals. We also use always valid p-values to obtain multiple hypothesis testing control in the sequential context. Our methodology has been implemented in a large scale commercial A/B testing platform to analyze hundreds of thousands of experiments to date.

Statistics 101, 201, and 202 are three open-source interactive web applications built with R R and Shiny shiny to support the teaching of introductory statistics and probability. The apps help students carry out common statistical computations -- computing probabilities from standard probability distributions, constructing confidence intervals, conducting hypothesis tests, and fitting simple linear regression models -- without requiring prior knowledge of R or any other programming language. Each app provides numerical results, plots rendered with ggplot2 ggplot2, and inline mathematical derivations typeset with MathJax cervone2012mathjax, so that computation and statistical reasoning appear side by side in a single interface. The suite is organised around a broad pedagogical progression: Statistics~101 introduces probability distributions and their properties; Statistics~201 addresses confidence intervals and hypothesis tests; and Statistics~202 covers the simple linear model. All three apps are freely accessible online and their source code is released under a CC-BY-4.0 license.

Given a large pool of unlabelled data and a smaller amount of labels, prediction-powered inference (PPI) leverages machine learning predictions to increase the statistical efficiency of confidence interval procedures based solely on labelled data, while preserving fixed-time validity. In this paper, we extend the PPI framework to the sequential setting, where labelled and unlabelled datasets grow over time. Exploiting Ville's inequality and the method of mixtures, we propose prediction-powered confidence sequence procedures that are asymptotically valid uniformly over time and naturally accommodate prior knowledge on the quality of the predictions to further boost efficiency. We carefully illustrate the design choices behind our method and demonstrate its effectiveness in real and synthetic examples.

In natural language processing, a recently popular line of work explores how to best report the experimental results of neural networks. One exemplar publication, titled "Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results," advocates for reporting the expected validation effectiveness of the best-tuned model, with respect to the computational budget. In the present work, we critically examine this paper. As far as statistical generalizability is concerned, we find unspoken pitfalls and caveats with this approach. We analytically show that their estimator is biased and uses error-prone assumptions. We find that the estimator favors negative errors and yields poor bootstrapped confidence intervals. We derive an unbiased alternative and bolster our claims with empirical evidence from statistical simulation. Our codebase is at http://github.com/castorini/meanmax.

This paper derives confidence intervals (CI) and time-uniform confidence sequences (CS) for the classical problem of estimating an unknown mean from bounded observations. We present a general approach for deriving concentration bounds, that can be seen as a generalization and improvement of the celebrated Chernoff method. At its heart, it is based on a class of composite nonnegative martingales, with strong connections to testing by betting and the method of mixtures. We show how to extend these ideas to sampling without replacement, another heavily studied problem. In all cases, our bounds are adaptive to the unknown variance, and empirically vastly outperform existing approaches based on Hoeffding or empirical Bernstein inequalities and their recent supermartingale generalizations. In short, we establish a new state-of-the-art for four fundamental problems: CSs and CIs for bounded means, when sampling with and without replacement.

Some security-development settings require local models that map an objective to an ordered, checkable plan. We present a low-rank decomposition adapter and release a case-disjoint corpus with 24 authored decompositions and 83 derived next-step examples across 24 satellite-security cases. To prevent reference-plan leakage, prompts contain one objective and eight shuffled SPARTA candidates. The evaluation candidate sets are constructed with oracle inclusion of every reference technique, so this study measures selection from a controlled set, not retrieval. On six fixed cases and five decoding seeds, mean scores vary across adapters and prompted Qwen2.5 baselines; a separate greedy check over three adapter training seeds shows non-negligible training variance. A 24-fold greedy leave-one-case-out control at the two compact sizes likewise shows tradeoffs: at 1.5B, adapter precision is 0.583 against 0.480 for two-shot prompting, while recall is 0.586 against 0.660. Case-resampling intervals for adapter precision relative to the strongest prompted baseline cross zero at 1.5B and 7B. The adapter is also substantially more format-compliant, which prevents attributing all score differences to selection. Autoregressive next-step accuracy is 0.08, 0.06, and 0.29 at 0.5B, 1.5B, and 7B. We therefore offer the formulation, leakage-controlled dataset, reproducibility package, and descriptive analysis as a proof of concept, not evidence of a reliable stand-alone decomposition system or a general adapter advantage. A separate diagnostic tests contract reuse.

This paper introduces a structural equation formulation that gives rise to a new family of quasi-periodic Gaussian processes, useful to process a broad class of natural and physiological signals. The proposed formulation simplifies generation and forecasting, and provides hyperparameter estimates, which we exploit in a convergent and consistent iterative estimation algorithm. A bootstrap approach for standard error estimation and confidence intervals is also provided. We demonstrate the computational and scaling benefits of the proposed approach on a broad class of problems, including water level tidal analysis, CO_{2} emission data, and sunspot numbers data. By leveraging the structural equations, our method reduces the cost of likelihood evaluations and predictions from O(k^2 p^2) to O(p^2), significantly improving scalability.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

This work derives methods for performing nonparametric, nonasymptotic statistical inference for population means under the constraint of local differential privacy (LDP). Given bounded observations (X_1, dots, X_n) with mean mu^star that are privatized into (Z_1, dots, Z_n), we present confidence intervals (CI) and time-uniform confidence sequences (CS) for mu^star when only given access to the privatized data. To achieve this, we introduce a nonparametric and sequentially interactive generalization of Warner's famous ``randomized response'' mechanism, satisfying LDP for arbitrary bounded random variables, and then provide CIs and CSs for their means given access to the resulting privatized observations. For example, our results yield private analogues of Hoeffding's inequality in both fixed-time and time-uniform regimes. We extend these Hoeffding-type CSs to capture time-varying (non-stationary) means, and conclude by illustrating how these methods can be used to conduct private online A/B tests.

Hoffmann et al. (2022) propose three methods for estimating a compute-optimal scaling law. We attempt to replicate their third estimation procedure, which involves fitting a parametric loss function to a reconstruction of data from their plots. We find that the reported estimates are inconsistent with their first two estimation methods, fail at fitting the extracted data, and report implausibly narrow confidence intervals--intervals this narrow would require over 600,000 experiments, while they likely only ran fewer than 500. In contrast, our rederivation of the scaling law using the third approach yields results that are compatible with the findings from the first two estimation procedures described by Hoffmann et al.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) complements the knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs) by leveraging external information to enhance response accuracy for queries. This approach is widely applied in several fields by taking its advantage of injecting the most up-to-date information, and researchers are focusing on understanding and improving this aspect to unlock the full potential of RAG in such high-stakes applications. However, despite the potential of RAG to address these needs, the mechanisms behind the confidence levels of its outputs remain underexplored, although the confidence of information is very critical in some domains, such as finance, healthcare, and medicine. Our study focuses the impact of RAG on confidence within the medical domain under various configurations and models. We evaluate confidence by treating the model's predicted probability as its output and calculating Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) scores based on the probabilities and accuracy. In addition, we analyze whether the order of retrieved documents within prompts calibrates the confidence. Our findings reveal large variation in confidence and accuracy depending on the model, settings, and the format of input prompts. These results underscore the necessity of optimizing configurations based on the specific model and conditions.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

Conformal prediction(CP) has become a cornerstone of distribution-free uncertainty quantification, conventionally evaluated by its coverage and interval length. This work critically examines the sufficiency of these standard metrics. We demonstrate that the interval length might be deceptively improved through a counter-intuitive approach termed Prejudicial Trick(PT), while the coverage remains valid. Specifically, for any given test sample, PT probabilistically returns an interval, which is either null or constructed using an adjusted confidence level, thereby preserving marginal coverage. While PT potentially yields a deceptively lower interval length, it introduces practical vulnerabilities: the same input can yield completely different prediction intervals across repeated runs of the algorithm. We formally derive the conditions under which PT achieves these misleading improvements and provide extensive empirical evidence across various regression and classification tasks. Furthermore, we introduce a new metric interval stability which helps detect whether a new CP method implicitly improves the length based on such PT-like techniques. Code is available at https://github.com/benben-cd/PT-Conformal-Prediction.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for tabular question answering, yet calibration on structured data is largely unstudied. This paper presents the first systematic comparison of five confidence estimation methods across five frontier LLMs and two tabular QA benchmarks. All models are severely overconfident (smooth ECE 0.35-0.64 versus 0.10-0.15 reported for textual QA). A consistent self-evaluation versus perturbation dichotomy replicates across both benchmarks and all four fully-covered models: self-evaluation methods (verbalized, P(True)) achieve AUROC 0.42-0.76, while perturbation methods (semantic entropy, self-consistency, and our Multi-Format Agreement) achieve AUROC 0.78-0.86. Per-model paired bootstrap tests reject the null at p<0.001 after Holm-Bonferroni correction, and a 3-seed check on GPT-4o-mini gives a per-seed standard deviation of only 0.006. The paper proposes Multi-Format Agreement (MFA), which exploits the lossless and deterministic serialization variation unique to structured data (Markdown, HTML, JSON, CSV) to estimate confidence at 20% lower API cost than sampling baselines. MFA reduces ECE by 44-63%, generalizes across all four models on TableBench (mean AUROC 0.80), and combines complementarily with sampling: an MFA + self-consistency ensemble lifts AUROC from 0.74 to 0.82. A secondary contribution, structure-aware recalibration, improves AUROC by +10 percentage points over standard post-hoc methods.

We initiate the study of statistical inference and A/B testing for first-price pacing equilibria (FPPE). The FPPE model captures the dynamics resulting from large-scale first-price auction markets where buyers use pacing-based budget management. Such markets arise in the context of internet advertising, where budgets are prevalent. We propose a statistical framework for the FPPE model, in which a limit FPPE with a continuum of items models the long-run steady-state behavior of the auction platform, and an observable FPPE consisting of a finite number of items provides the data to estimate primitives of the limit FPPE, such as revenue, Nash social welfare (a fair metric of efficiency), and other parameters of interest. We develop central limit theorems and asymptotically valid confidence intervals. Furthermore, we establish the asymptotic local minimax optimality of our estimators. We then show that the theory can be used for conducting statistically valid A/B testing on auction platforms. Numerical simulations verify our central limit theorems, and empirical coverage rates for our confidence intervals agree with our theory.

We study the problem of detecting the correlation between two Gaussian databases XinR^{ntimes d} and Y^{ntimes d}, each composed of n users with d features. This problem is relevant in the analysis of social media, computational biology, etc. We formulate this as a hypothesis testing problem: under the null hypothesis, these two databases are statistically independent. Under the alternative, however, there exists an unknown permutation sigma over the set of n users (or, row permutation), such that X is rho-correlated with Y^sigma, a permuted version of Y. We determine sharp thresholds at which optimal testing exhibits a phase transition, depending on the asymptotic regime of n and d. Specifically, we prove that if rho^2dto0, as dtoinfty, then weak detection (performing slightly better than random guessing) is statistically impossible, irrespectively of the value of n. This compliments the performance of a simple test that thresholds the sum all entries of X^TY. Furthermore, when d is fixed, we prove that strong detection (vanishing error probability) is impossible for any rho<rho^star, where rho^star is an explicit function of d, while weak detection is again impossible as long as rho^2dto0. These results close significant gaps in current recent related studies.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90\% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1\%), Grok 4 (76.4\%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3\%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Sequential trial emulation (STE) estimates the effect of a sustained treatment by stacking nested emulated trials with inverse-probability weighting. Additive-hazards STE estimators of the marginal risk difference recommend the nonparametric bootstrap without evaluating its coverage. Using a correctly-specifiable mechanism (up to a small, disclosed residual), we compare analytic and bootstrap standard errors for both estimands. Exploiting the closed-form linearity of the additive-hazards estimating equation, we derive the influence functions and prove the default row-level robust variance inconsistent for the marginal risk-difference curve, and show the same failure empirically for the constant hazard difference: the row-level variance omits a within-subject cross-trial covariance that is positive under a sign condition we verify across our mechanisms, and is anticonservative at every horizon except the first - only there, where the covariance is zero, is the row-level standard error unimpaired. The subject-clustered variance and multiplier bootstrap are consistent for the fixed-weight linearisation and support simultaneous confidence bands, whose measured coverage is 0.88. Across our simulations the model-based and row-level robust intervals are anticonservative and worsen with sample size, coverage falling to 0.71 at n=5000; clustering leaves the constant-hazard-difference coverage near 0.86 at n=5000, and the multiplier bootstrap leaves the risk-difference-curve coverage near 0.90 (0.86 at the longest horizon). The STE constant hazard difference is a design-weighted summary of a time-varying effect, dependent on the trial structure. We illustrate on the Stanford heart transplant data and provide them in the steCI R package.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is the de facto tool for assessing effectiveness differences between Information Retrieval systems. Researchers use statistical tests to check whether those differences will generalise to online settings or are just due to the samples observed in the laboratory. Much work has been devoted to studying which test is the most reliable when comparing a pair of systems, but most of the IR real-world experiments involve more than two. In the multiple comparisons scenario, testing several systems simultaneously may inflate the errors committed by the tests. In this paper, we use a new approach to assess the reliability of multiple comparison procedures using simulated and real TREC data. Experiments show that Wilcoxon plus the Benjamini-Hochberg correction yields Type I error rates according to the significance level for typical sample sizes while being the best test in terms of statistical power.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Although randomized smoothing has demonstrated high certified robustness and superior scalability to other certified defenses, the high computational overhead of the robustness certification bottlenecks the practical applicability, as it depends heavily on the large sample approximation for estimating the confidence interval. In existing works, the sample size for the confidence interval is universally set and agnostic to the input for prediction. This Input-Agnostic Sampling (IAS) scheme may yield a poor Average Certified Radius (ACR)-runtime trade-off which calls for improvement. In this paper, we propose Input-Specific Sampling (ISS) acceleration to achieve the cost-effectiveness for robustness certification, in an adaptive way of reducing the sampling size based on the input characteristic. Furthermore, our method universally controls the certified radius decline from the ISS sample size reduction. The empirical results on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet show that ISS can speed up the certification by more than three times at a limited cost of 0.05 certified radius. Meanwhile, ISS surpasses IAS on the average certified radius across the extensive hyperparameter settings. Specifically, ISS achieves ACR=0.958 on ImageNet (sigma=1.0) in 250 minutes, compared to ACR=0.917 by IAS under the same condition. We release our code in https://github.com/roy-ch/Input-Specific-Certification.

Activation oracles aim to make the activations of other models legible to humans and yield promising results compared to white-box interpretability techniques. However, uncertainty quantification (UQ) for the natural-language outputs of such activation oracles is so far understudied. Here, we investigate 6 different methods for estimating the confidence of activation oracles and evaluate how well-calibrated their confidence scores are. Our experiments on 6,000 samples per oracle (varying verbalizer and context prompts) reveal that bootstrap mode frequency is the best-calibrated method among those tested (ECE 5.7% vs. 25.5% for the answer-word log-probability on Qwen3-8B; 10.3% vs. 13.1% on Qwen3.6-27B), and that the log-prob baseline can serve as a fast triage signal at a fraction of the cost. Code and the patched trainer are available at https://github.com/federicotorrielli/probabilistic_activation_oracles.

Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions that may cause performance drops. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples for which model confidence exceeds that threshold. ATC outperforms previous methods across several model architectures, types of distribution shifts (e.g., due to synthetic corruptions, dataset reproduction, or novel subpopulations), and datasets (Wilds, ImageNet, Breeds, CIFAR, and MNIST). In our experiments, ATC estimates target performance 2-4times more accurately than prior methods. We also explore the theoretical foundations of the problem, proving that, in general, identifying the accuracy is just as hard as identifying the optimal predictor and thus, the efficacy of any method rests upon (perhaps unstated) assumptions on the nature of the shift. Finally, analyzing our method on some toy distributions, we provide insights concerning when it works. Code is available at https://github.com/saurabhgarg1996/ATC_code/.

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.

The correct use of model evaluation, model selection, and algorithm selection techniques is vital in academic machine learning research as well as in many industrial settings. This article reviews different techniques that can be used for each of these three subtasks and discusses the main advantages and disadvantages of each technique with references to theoretical and empirical studies. Further, recommendations are given to encourage best yet feasible practices in research and applications of machine learning. Common methods such as the holdout method for model evaluation and selection are covered, which are not recommended when working with small datasets. Different flavors of the bootstrap technique are introduced for estimating the uncertainty of performance estimates, as an alternative to confidence intervals via normal approximation if bootstrapping is computationally feasible. Common cross-validation techniques such as leave-one-out cross-validation and k-fold cross-validation are reviewed, the bias-variance trade-off for choosing k is discussed, and practical tips for the optimal choice of k are given based on empirical evidence. Different statistical tests for algorithm comparisons are presented, and strategies for dealing with multiple comparisons such as omnibus tests and multiple-comparison corrections are discussed. Finally, alternative methods for algorithm selection, such as the combined F-test 5x2 cross-validation and nested cross-validation, are recommended for comparing machine learning algorithms when datasets are small.

Increasing test-time computation is a straightforward approach to enhancing the quality of responses in Large Language Models (LLMs). While Best-of-N sampling and Self-Consistency with majority voting are simple and effective, they require a fixed number of sampling responses for each query, regardless of its complexity. This could result in wasted computation for simpler questions and insufficient exploration for more challenging ones. In this work, we argue that model confidence of responses can be used for improving the efficiency of test-time scaling. Unfortunately, LLMs are known to be overconfident and provide unreliable confidence estimation. To address this limitation, we introduce Self-Calibration by distilling Self-Consistency-derived confidence into the model itself. This enables reliable confidence estimation at test time with one forward pass. We then design confidence-based efficient test-time scaling methods to handle queries of various difficulty, such as Early-Stopping for Best-of-N and Self-Consistency with calibrated confidence. Experiments on three LLMs across six datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Specifically, applying confidence-based Early Stopping to Best-of-N improves MathQA accuracy from 81.0 to 83.6 with a sample budget of 16 responses, indicating the efficacy of confidence-based sampling strategy at inference time.

We introduce BSDetector, a method for detecting bad and speculative answers from a pretrained Large Language Model by estimating a numeric confidence score for any output it generated. Our uncertainty quantification technique works for any LLM accessible only via a black-box API, whose training data remains unknown. By expending a bit of extra computation, users of any LLM API can now get the same response as they would ordinarily, as well as a confidence estimate that cautions when not to trust this response. Experiments on both closed and open-form Question-Answer benchmarks reveal that BSDetector more accurately identifies incorrect LLM responses than alternative uncertainty estimation procedures (for both GPT-3 and ChatGPT). By sampling multiple responses from the LLM and considering the one with the highest confidence score, we can additionally obtain more accurate responses from the same LLM, without any extra training steps. In applications involving automated evaluation with LLMs, accounting for our confidence scores leads to more reliable evaluation in both human-in-the-loop and fully-automated settings (across both GPT 3.5 and 4).

For observational studies, we study the sensitivity of causal inference when treatment assignments may depend on unobserved confounders. We develop a loss minimization approach for estimating bounds on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) when unobserved confounders have a bounded effect on the odds ratio of treatment selection. Our approach is scalable and allows flexible use of model classes in estimation, including nonparametric and black-box machine learning methods. Based on these bounds for the CATE, we propose a sensitivity analysis for the average treatment effect (ATE). Our semi-parametric estimator extends/bounds the augmented inverse propensity weighted (AIPW) estimator for the ATE under bounded unobserved confounding. By constructing a Neyman orthogonal score, our estimator of the bound for the ATE is a regular root-n estimator so long as the nuisance parameters are estimated at the o_p(n^{-1/4}) rate. We complement our methodology with optimality results showing that our proposed bounds are tight in certain cases. We demonstrate our method on simulated and real data examples, and show accurate coverage of our confidence intervals in practical finite sample regimes with rich covariate information.

While confidence estimation is a promising direction for mitigating hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs), current research dominantly focuses on single-turn settings. The dynamics of model confidence in multi-turn conversations, where context accumulates and ambiguity is progressively resolved, remain largely unexplored. Reliable confidence estimation in multi-turn settings is critical for many downstream applications, such as autonomous agents and human-in-the-loop systems. This work presents the first systematic study of confidence estimation in multi-turn interactions, establishing a formal evaluation framework grounded in two key desiderata: per-turn calibration and monotonicity of confidence as more information becomes available. To facilitate this, we introduce novel metrics, including a length-normalized Expected Calibration Error (InfoECE), and a new "Hinter-Guesser" paradigm for generating controlled evaluation datasets. Our experiments reveal that widely-used confidence techniques struggle with calibration and monotonicity in multi-turn dialogues. We propose P(Sufficient), a logit-based probe that achieves comparatively better performance, although the task remains far from solved. Our work provides a foundational methodology for developing more reliable and trustworthy conversational agents.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

Scaling the test-time compute of large language models has demonstrated impressive performance on reasoning benchmarks. However, existing evaluations of test-time scaling make the strong assumption that a reasoning system should always give an answer to any question provided. This overlooks concerns about whether a model is confident in its answer, and whether it is appropriate to always provide a response. To address these concerns, we extract confidence scores during reasoning for thresholding model responses. We find that increasing compute budget at inference time not only helps models answer more questions correctly, but also increases confidence in correct responses. We then extend the current paradigm of zero-risk responses during evaluation by considering settings with non-zero levels of response risk, and suggest a recipe for reporting evaluations under these settings.

Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests. This paper audits that shortcut on a matched 51-row matrix spanning 6 models, 4 families, a 7-level GGUF ladder, and AWQ/GPTQ INT4 checkpoints. In this matrix the shortcut fails: all 36 quality-safety pairings split direction across models, and 9 hidden-danger rows plus 1 near-hidden-danger row show quality stable or improved while refusal falls by 12-68 percentage points. Seven of the 11 AWQ/GPTQ rows are hidden-danger. A four-probe mechanistic follow-up over the 17 Hugging Face-backed FP16/AWQ/GPTQ cells does not rescue it: entropy, refusal-direction, and calibration probes are weak or null separators of dangerous rows, and although probe-identified safety-associated neurons absorb 1.39times more quantization error overall (p < 5 times 10^{-7}), the effect is not regime-specific. Claude Sonnet 4 relabels 11,470 items in a predefined stratified set, agrees with the primary gemma3:12b judge on 89.9\% of rows (κ= 0.873, 95\% CI [0.866, 0.881]), and changes 0/10 hidden-danger cells. A calibrated study-internal behavioral screen -- the Refusal Template Stability Index (RTSI), built from four refusal-template drift features and calibrated on this matrix -- routes 10/10 hidden- or near-hidden-danger rows to direct safety testing (Wilson 95\% CI lower bound 0.72) while leaving 23 of 45 non-baseline rows in a low-risk bucket under both in-sample scoring and row-level leave-one-out validation; on the same matrix, the best single-feature baselines (unique-prefix-rate-delta, raw refusal-rate delta) recover 9/10 and 8/10 respectively at matched bucket size, and cross-stack transfer requires recalibration. For the quantized checkpoints, model families, and safety outcomes studied here, retained quality cannot waive direct safety evaluation.

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios. We provide a simple Python library for these Bayesian methods at https://github.com/sambowyer/bayes_evals .

We consider the problem of ranking n experts based on their performances on d tasks. We make a monotonicity assumption stating that for each pair of experts, one outperforms the other on all tasks. We consider the sequential setting where in each round, the learner has access to noisy evaluations of actively chosen pair of expert-task, given the information available up to the actual round. Given a confidence parameter delta in (0, 1), we provide strategies allowing to recover the correct ranking of experts and develop a bound on the total number of queries made by our algorithm that hold with probability at least 1 -- delta. We show that our strategy is adaptive to the complexity of the problem (our bounds are instance dependent), and develop matching lower bounds up to a poly-logarithmic factor. Finally, we adapt our strategy to the relaxed problem of best expert identification and provide numerical simulation consistent with our theoretical results.

Semi-supervised semantic segmentation has long turned on one question, which pseudo-labels to trust, and a generation of selection rules, dynamic thresholds, per-class curricula, soft confidence weights, answered it for the noisy, under-confident ResNet teachers of their day. Self-supervised foundation encoders change the regime: with a DINOv2 teacher, confidence saturates, so the filtering that helped a weak teacher can hurt a strong one. We propose CW-BASS v2, a saturation-aware pseudo-label selection method that reads the teacher's confidence regime rather than committing to one rule. It pairs held-out calibration, an unbiased per-class noise estimate, with a self-adaptive confidence floor that provably bounds retention away from 1, and combines them in a one-pass gate: measure the reliability of the teacher's confident set, pi_kept = Pr[correct | c >= tau], on a held-out slice, and filter strictly when it meets the confidence demanded (pi_kept >= tau), falling back to the adaptive floor otherwise. The boundary is the pre-existing operating threshold, not a value tuned to mIoU, and across six DINOv2 teachers it makes the correct strict-vs-floor call blind. CW-BASS v2 thus recovers the UniMatch V2 operating point on the saturated benchmarks by selecting strict (Pascal VOC 1/8 87.4 against its reported 87.9; Cityscapes within 0.5), and improves on it where the confident set is unreliable (pi_kept ~ 89%, ADE20K), where the floor edges ahead (+1.5 mIoU, single seed). The gate is principled because the failure it avoids is measured, not assumed: on a reliable, saturated teacher the confidence distribution's dynamic range collapses (98% of Pascal pixels >= 0.95), so an adaptive cutoff floods the retention mask and self-training decays into confirmation bias.

This paper presents a new approach for assessing uncertainty in machine translation by simultaneously evaluating translation quality and providing a reliable confidence score. Our approach utilizes conformal predictive distributions to produce prediction intervals with guaranteed coverage, meaning that for any given significance level epsilon, we can expect the true quality score of a translation to fall out of the interval at a rate of 1-epsilon. In this paper, we demonstrate how our method outperforms a simple, but effective baseline on six different language pairs in terms of coverage and sharpness. Furthermore, we validate that our approach requires the data exchangeability assumption to hold for optimal performance.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Assessing sampling uncertainty in extremum estimation can be challenging when the asymptotic variance is not analytically tractable. Bootstrap inference offers a feasible solution but can be computationally costly especially when the model is complex. This paper uses iterates of a specially designed stochastic optimization algorithm as draws from which both point estimates and bootstrap standard errors can be computed in a single run. The draws are generated by the gradient and Hessian computed from batches of data that are resampled at each iteration. We show that these draws yield consistent estimates and asymptotically valid frequentist inference for a large class of regular problems. The algorithm provides accurate standard errors in simulation examples and empirical applications at low computational costs. The draws from the algorithm also provide a convenient way to detect data irregularities.

We propose a simple multiple outlier identification method for parametric location-scale and shape-scale models when the number of possible outliers is not specified. The method is based on a result giving asymptotic properties of extreme z-scores. Robust estimators of model parameters are used defining z-scores. An extensive simulation study was done for comparing of the proposed method with existing methods. For the normal family, the method is compared with the well known Davies-Gather, Rosner's, Hawking's and Bolshev's multiple outlier identification methods. The choice of an upper limit for the number of possible outliers in case of Rosner's test application is discussed. For other families, the proposed method is compared with a method generalizing Gather-Davies method. In most situations, the new method has the highest outlier identification power in terms of masking and swamping values. We also created R package outliersTests for proposed test.

In this article, we develop an asymptotic method for constructing confidence regions for the set of all linear subspaces arising from PCA, from which we derive hypothesis tests on this set. Our method is based on the geometry of Riemannian manifolds with which some sets of linear subspaces are endowed.

How many experimental studies would have come to different conclusions had they been run on larger samples? I show how to estimate the expected number of statistically significant results that a set of experiments would have reported had their sample sizes all been counterfactually increased. The proposed deconvolution estimator is asymptotically normal and adjusts for publication bias. Unlike related methods, this approach requires no assumptions of any kind about the distribution of true intervention treatment effects and allows for point masses. Simulations find good coverage even when the t-score is only approximately normal. An application to randomized trials (RCTs) published in economics journals finds that doubling every sample would increase the power of t-tests by 7.2 percentage points on average. This effect is smaller than for non-RCTs and comparable to systematic replications in laboratory psychology where previous studies enabled more accurate power calculations. This suggests that RCTs are on average relatively insensitive to sample size increases. Research funders who wish to raise power should generally consider sponsoring better-measured and higher quality experiments -- rather than only larger ones.