arXiv subjects

Tijana Zrnic

Publications and source records attributed to Tijana Zrnic.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Valid Inference with Synthetic Data via Task Exchangeability

There is a proliferation of work arguing for the use of synthetic data in scientific research. For example, social scientists are arguing for the use of LLM-generated "silicon samples" in pilot studies; AI evaluations increasingly rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" outputs; and proteomics research is accelerated by generative models that produce synthetic protein structures. These developments raise an intriguing possibility: synthetic data may help researchers ask more questions, run more studies, and accelerate discovery. But they also raise a fundamental concern: synthetic data can be biased, noisy, and misspecified. In this work, we propose statistical principles for using synthetic data in scientific research with provable validity guarantees. The key insight is a new technical condition that we call task exchangeability. Informally, this is a requirement that the researcher can identify historical tasks, for which real data is available, such that their current task of interest is exchangeable with the historical tasks in an appropriate mathematical sense. We develop methods for valid inference under task exchangeability, together with extensions that provide guarantees even beyond exchangeability. We demonstrate the framework on public opinion surveys with silicon samples and AI evaluation with autoraters.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Predictions as Surrogates: Revisiting Surrogate Outcomes in the Age of AI

We establish a formal connection between the decades-old surrogate outcome model in biostatistics and economics and the emerging field of prediction-powered inference (PPI). The connection treats predictions from pre-trained models, prevalent in the age of AI, as cost-effective surrogates for expensive outcomes. Building on the surrogate outcomes literature, we develop recalibrated prediction-powered inference, a more efficient approach to statistical inference than existing PPI proposals. Our method departs from the existing proposals by using flexible machine learning techniques to learn the optimal ``imputed loss'' through a step we call recalibration. Importantly, the method always improves upon the estimator that relies solely on the data with available true outcomes, even when the optimal imputed loss is estimated imperfectly, and it achieves the smallest asymptotic variance among PPI estimators if the estimate is consistent. Computationally, our optimization objective is convex whenever the loss function that defines the target parameter is convex. We further analyze the benefits of recalibration, both theoretically and numerically, in several common scenarios where machine learning predictions systematically deviate from the outcome of interest. We demonstrate significant gains in effective sample size over existing PPI proposals via three applications leveraging state-of-the-art machine learning/AI models.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Partially Performative Prediction

Performative prediction studies feedback loops that arise when predictive models are deployed in consequential domains. In these settings, deploying a model can change the population whose patterns the model aims to predict, inducing a distribution shift that is endogenous to the learning system. This perspective departs from classical treatments of distribution shift, where shifts are typically modeled as exogenous changes in the data-generating process. Yet, in practice, distribution shift is rarely one or the other. Predictive models may influence future data through the decisions they support, while the world itself continues to drift for reasons beyond the learner's control. We study partially performative prediction, a framework that captures both endogenous and exogenous sources of distribution shift. The framework generalizes performative prediction by allowing the data distribution to evolve both in response to the deployed model and according to an external, time-varying process. We extend the central notions of performative stability and performative optimality to this setting by defining their online analogues that track the evolving partially performative environment. We analyze practical learning heuristics, including repeated retraining, and characterize when they successfully adapt to partially performative environments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Active Statistical Inference

Inspired by the concept of active learning, we propose active inference$\unicode{x2013}$a methodology for statistical inference with machine-learning-assisted data collection. Assuming a budget on the number of labels that can be collected, the methodology uses a machine learning model to identify which data points would be most beneficial to label, thus effectively utilizing the budget. It operates on a simple yet powerful intuition: prioritize the collection of labels for data points where the model exhibits uncertainty, and rely on the model's predictions where it is confident. Active inference constructs provably valid confidence intervals and hypothesis tests while leveraging any black-box machine learning model and handling any data distribution. The key point is that it achieves the same level of accuracy with far fewer samples than existing baselines relying on non-adaptively-collected data. This means that for the same number of collected samples, active inference enables smaller confidence intervals and more powerful p-values. We evaluate active inference on datasets from public opinion research, census analysis, and proteomics.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Look-Ahead Reasoning on Learning Platforms

On many learning platforms, the optimization criteria guiding model training reflect the priorities of the designer rather than those of the individuals they affect. Consequently, users may act strategically to obtain more favorable outcomes. While past work has studied strategic user behavior on learning platforms, the focus has largely been on strategic responses to a deployed model, without considering the behavior of other users. In contrast, look-ahead reasoning takes into account that user actions are coupled, and -- at scale -- impact future predictions. Within this framework, we first formalize level-k thinking, a concept from behavioral economics, where users aim to outsmart their peers by looking one step ahead. We show that, while convergence to an equilibrium is accelerated, the equilibrium remains the same, providing no benefit of higher-level reasoning for individuals in the long run. Then, we focus on collective reasoning, where users take coordinated actions by optimizing through their joint impact on the model. By contrasting collective with selfish behavior, we characterize the benefits and limits of coordination; a new notion of alignment between the learner's and the users' utilities emerges as a key concept. Look-ahead reasoning can be seen as a generalization of algorithmic collective action; we thus offer the first results characterizing the utility trade-offs of coordination when contesting algorithmic systems.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Prediction-Powered Inference with Imputed Covariates and Nonuniform Sampling

Machine learning models are increasingly used to produce predictions that serve as input data in subsequent statistical analyses. For example, computer vision predictions of economic and environmental indicators based on satellite imagery are used in downstream regressions; similarly, language models are widely used to approximate human ratings and opinions in social science research. However, failure to properly account for errors in the machine learning predictions renders standard statistical procedures invalid. Prior work uses what we call the Predict-Then-Debias estimator to give valid confidence intervals when machine learning algorithms impute missing variables, assuming a small complete sample from the population of interest. We expand the scope by introducing bootstrap confidence intervals that apply when the complete data is a nonuniform (i.e., weighted, stratified, or clustered) sample and to settings where an arbitrary subset of features is imputed. Importantly, the method can be applied to many settings without requiring additional calculations. We prove that these confidence intervals are valid under no assumptions on the quality of the machine learning model and are no wider than the intervals obtained by methods that do not use machine learning predictions.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Robust Sampling for Active Statistical Inference

Active statistical inference is a new method for inference with AI-assisted data collection. Given a budget on the number of labeled data points that can be collected and assuming access to an AI predictive model, the basic idea is to improve estimation accuracy by prioritizing the collection of labels where the model is most uncertain. The drawback, however, is that inaccurate uncertainty estimates can make active sampling produce highly noisy results, potentially worse than those from naive uniform sampling. In this work, we present robust sampling strategies for active statistical inference. Robust sampling ensures that the resulting estimator is never worse than the estimator using uniform sampling. Furthermore, with reliable uncertainty estimates, the estimator usually outperforms standard active inference. This is achieved by optimally interpolating between uniform and active sampling, depending on the quality of the uncertainty scores, and by using ideas from robust optimization. We demonstrate the utility of the method on a series of real datasets from computational social science and survey research.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Probably Approximately Correct Labels

Obtaining high-quality labeled datasets is often costly, requiring either human annotation or expensive experiments. In theory, powerful pre-trained AI models provide an opportunity to automatically label datasets and save costs. Unfortunately, these models come with no guarantees on their accuracy, making wholesale replacement of manual labeling impractical. In this work, we propose a method for leveraging pre-trained AI models to curate cost-effective and high-quality datasets. In particular, our approach results in probably approximately correct labels: with high probability, the overall labeling error is small. Our method is nonasymptotically valid under minimal assumptions on the dataset or the AI model being studied, and thus enables rigorous yet efficient dataset curation using modern AI models. We demonstrate the benefits of the methodology through text annotation with large language models, image labeling with pre-trained vision models, and protein folding analysis with AlphaFold.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Can Unconfident LLM Annotations Be Used for Confident Conclusions?

Large language models (LLMs) have shown high agreement with human raters across a variety of tasks, demonstrating potential to ease the challenges of human data collection. In computational social science (CSS), researchers are increasingly leveraging LLM annotations to complement slow and expensive human annotations. Still, guidelines for collecting and using LLM annotations, without compromising the validity of downstream conclusions, remain limited. We introduce Confidence-Driven Inference: a method that combines LLM annotations and LLM confidence indicators to strategically select which human annotations should be collected, with the goal of producing accurate statistical estimates and provably valid confidence intervals while reducing the number of human annotations needed. Our approach comes with safeguards against LLM annotations of poor quality, guaranteeing that the conclusions will be both valid and no less accurate than if we only relied on human annotations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Confidence-Driven Inference over baselines in statistical estimation tasks across three CSS settings--text politeness, stance, and bias--reducing the needed number of human annotations by over 25% in each. Although we use CSS settings for demonstration, Confidence-Driven Inference can be used to estimate most standard quantities across a broad range of NLP problems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

A Note on the Prediction-Powered Bootstrap

We introduce PPBoot: a bootstrap-based method for prediction-powered inference. PPBoot is applicable to arbitrary estimation problems and is very simple to implement, essentially only requiring one application of the bootstrap. Through a series of examples, we demonstrate that PPBoot often performs nearly identically to (and sometimes better than) the earlier PPI(++) method based on asymptotic normality$\unicode{x2013}$when the latter is applicable$\unicode{x2013}$without requiring any asymptotic characterizations. Given its versatility, PPBoot could simplify and expand the scope of application of prediction-powered inference to problems where central limit theorems are hard to prove.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

A Flexible Defense Against the Winner's Curse

Across science and policy, decision-makers often need to draw conclusions about the best candidate among competing alternatives. For instance, researchers may seek to infer the effectiveness of the most successful treatment or determine which demographic group benefits most from a specific treatment. Similarly, in machine learning, practitioners are often interested in the population performance of the model that performs best empirically. However, cherry-picking the best candidate leads to the winner's curse: the observed performance for the winner is biased upwards, rendering conclusions based on standard measures of uncertainty invalid. We introduce the zoom correction, a novel approach for valid inference on the winner. Our method is flexible: it can be employed in both parametric and nonparametric settings, can handle arbitrary dependencies between candidates, and automatically adapts to the level of selection bias. The method easily extends to important related problems, such as inference on the top k winners, inference on the value and identity of the population winner, and inference on "near-winners."

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Valid Inference After Causal Discovery

Causal discovery and causal effect estimation are two fundamental tasks in causal inference. While many methods have been developed for each task individually, statistical challenges arise when applying these methods jointly: estimating causal effects after running causal discovery algorithms on the same data leads to "double dipping," invalidating the coverage guarantees of classical confidence intervals. To this end, we develop tools for valid post-causal-discovery inference. Across empirical studies, we show that a naive combination of causal discovery and subsequent inference algorithms leads to highly inflated miscoverage rates; on the other hand, applying our method provides reliable coverage while achieving more accurate causal discovery than data splitting.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learning

We initiate a principled study of algorithmic collective action on digital platforms that deploy machine learning algorithms. We propose a simple theoretical model of a collective interacting with a firm's learning algorithm. The collective pools the data of participating individuals and executes an algorithmic strategy by instructing participants how to modify their own data to achieve a collective goal. We investigate the consequences of this model in three fundamental learning-theoretic settings: the case of a nonparametric optimal learning algorithm, a parametric risk minimizer, and gradient-based optimization. In each setting, we come up with coordinated algorithmic strategies and characterize natural success criteria as a function of the collective's size. Complementing our theory, we conduct systematic experiments on a skill classification task involving tens of thousands of resumes from a gig platform for freelancers. Through more than two thousand model training runs of a BERT-like language model, we see a striking correspondence emerge between our empirical observations and the predictions made by our theory. Taken together, our theory and experiments broadly support the conclusion that algorithmic collectives of exceedingly small fractional size can exert significant control over a platform's learning algorithm.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Plug-in Performative Optimization

When predictions are performative, the choice of which predictor to deploy influences the distribution of future observations. The overarching goal in learning under performativity is to find a predictor that has low \emph{performative risk}, that is, good performance on its induced distribution. One family of solutions for optimizing the performative risk, including bandits and other derivative-free methods, is agnostic to any structure in the performative feedback, leading to exceedingly slow convergence rates. A complementary family of solutions makes use of explicit \emph{models} for the feedback, such as best-response models in strategic classification, enabling faster rates. However, these rates critically rely on the feedback model being correct. In this work we study a general protocol for making use of possibly misspecified models in performative prediction, called \emph{plug-in performative optimization}. We show this solution can be far superior to model-agnostic strategies, as long as the misspecification is not too extreme. Our results support the hypothesis that models, even if misspecified, can indeed help with learning in performative settings.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Locally Simultaneous Inference

Selective inference is the problem of giving valid answers to statistical questions chosen in a data-driven manner. A standard solution to selective inference is simultaneous inference, which delivers valid answers to the set of all questions that could possibly have been asked. However, simultaneous inference can be unnecessarily conservative if this set includes many questions that were unlikely to be asked in the first place. We introduce a less conservative solution to selective inference that we call locally simultaneous inference, which only answers those questions that could plausibly have been asked in light of the observed data, all the while preserving rigorous type I error guarantees. For example, if the objective is to construct a confidence interval for the "winning" treatment effect in a clinical trial with multiple treatments, and it is obvious in hindsight that only one treatment had a chance to win, then our approach will return an interval that is nearly the same as the uncorrected, standard interval. Locally simultaneous inference is implemented by refining any method for simultaneous inference of interest. Under mild conditions satisfied by common confidence intervals, locally simultaneous inference strictly dominates its underlying simultaneous inference method, meaning it can never yield less statistical power but only more. Compared to conditional selective inference, which demands stronger guarantees, locally simultaneous inference is more easily applicable in nonparametric settings and is more numerically stable.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

PPI++: Efficient Prediction-Powered Inference

We present PPI++: a computationally lightweight methodology for estimation and inference based on a small labeled dataset and a typically much larger dataset of machine-learning predictions. The methods automatically adapt to the quality of available predictions, yielding easy-to-compute confidence sets -- for parameters of any dimensionality -- that always improve on classical intervals using only the labeled data. PPI++ builds on prediction-powered inference (PPI), which targets the same problem setting, improving its computational and statistical efficiency. Real and synthetic experiments demonstrate the benefits of the proposed adaptations.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Private Prediction Sets

In real-world settings involving consequential decision-making, the deployment of machine learning systems generally requires both reliable uncertainty quantification and protection of individuals' privacy. We present a framework that treats these two desiderata jointly. Our framework is based on conformal prediction, a methodology that augments predictive models to return prediction sets that provide uncertainty quantification -- they provably cover the true response with a user-specified probability, such as 90%. One might hope that when used with privately-trained models, conformal prediction would yield privacy guarantees for the resulting prediction sets; unfortunately, this is not the case. To remedy this key problem, we develop a method that takes any pre-trained predictive model and outputs differentially private prediction sets. Our method follows the general approach of split conformal prediction; we use holdout data to calibrate the size of the prediction sets but preserve privacy by using a privatized quantile subroutine. This subroutine compensates for the noise introduced to preserve privacy in order to guarantee correct coverage. We evaluate the method on large-scale computer vision datasets.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Cross-Prediction-Powered Inference

While reliable data-driven decision-making hinges on high-quality labeled data, the acquisition of quality labels often involves laborious human annotations or slow and expensive scientific measurements. Machine learning is becoming an appealing alternative as sophisticated predictive techniques are being used to quickly and cheaply produce large amounts of predicted labels; e.g., predicted protein structures are used to supplement experimentally derived structures, predictions of socioeconomic indicators from satellite imagery are used to supplement accurate survey data, and so on. Since predictions are imperfect and potentially biased, this practice brings into question the validity of downstream inferences. We introduce cross-prediction: a method for valid inference powered by machine learning. With a small labeled dataset and a large unlabeled dataset, cross-prediction imputes the missing labels via machine learning and applies a form of debiasing to remedy the prediction inaccuracies. The resulting inferences achieve the desired error probability and are more powerful than those that only leverage the labeled data. Closely related is the recent proposal of prediction-powered inference, which assumes that a good pre-trained model is already available. We show that cross-prediction is consistently more powerful than an adaptation of prediction-powered inference in which a fraction of the labeled data is split off and used to train the model. Finally, we observe that cross-prediction gives more stable conclusions than its competitors; its confidence intervals typically have significantly lower variability.

stat.ML↗