SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2512.05024

Model-Free Assessment of Simulator Fidelity via Quantile Curves

Abstract

As generative AI models are increasingly used to simulate real-world systems, quantifying the ``sim-to-real'' gap is critical. For each input setting of interest -- which we call a \emph{scenario}, such as a survey question or operating condition -- the real and simulated systems are associated with unobserved latent population parameters, and their discrepancy varies across scenarios. A fundamental challenge is that, for any given scenario, this discrepancy cannot be observed directly, since both systems are accessible only through finite samples, often of heterogeneous sizes across scenarios. Standard predictive inference methods are therefore ill-suited, as they quantify uncertainty in observable outputs rather than latent population parameters. To address this, we construct confidence sets for these latent parameters and use them to derive a robust proxy for the sim-to-real discrepancy. We then estimate the quantile function of this proxy to obtain a distribution-level risk profile of the simulator, which supports a broad range of statistical summaries, including statistical inference for the real output distribution in a new scenario, the calculation of risk measures like Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), and principled comparisons across simulators. Our method is model-agnostic and handles general output spaces, such as categorical survey responses and continuous multi-dimensional data. We demonstrate the practical utility of this method by evaluating the alignment of four major LLMs with human populations on the WorldValueBench dataset.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Garud Iyengar, Yu-Shiou Willy Lin, Kaizheng Wang. 2025-12-04. Model-Free Assessment of Simulator Fidelity via Quantile Curves. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05024

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME