arXiv subjects

Chris Holmes

Publications and source records attributed to Chris Holmes.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Causal Falsification of Digital Twins

Digital twins are simulation-based models designed to predict how a real-world process will evolve in response to interventions. This modelling paradigm holds substantial promise in many applications, but rigorous procedures for assessing their accuracy are essential for safety-critical settings. We consider how to assess the accuracy of a digital twin using real-world data. We formulate this as a causal inference problem, which leads to a precise definition of what it means for a twin to be "correct". Unfortunately, fundamental results from causal inference mean observational data cannot be used to certify a twin in this sense unless potentially tenuous assumptions are made, such as that the data are unconfounded. To avoid these assumptions, we propose instead to find situations in which the twin is not correct, and present a general-purpose statistical procedure for doing so. Our approach yields reliable and actionable information about the twin under only the assumption of an i.i.d. dataset of observational trajectories, and remains sound even if the data are confounded. We apply our methodology to a large-scale, real-world case study involving sepsis modelling within the Pulse Physiology Engine, which we assess using the MIMIC-III dataset of ICU patients.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Predicting fixed-sample test decisions enables anytime-valid inference

Statistical hypothesis tests typically use prespecified sample sizes, yet data often arrive sequentially. Interim analyses invalidate classical error guarantees, while existing sequential methods require rigid testing preschedules or incur substantial losses in statistical power. We introduce a simple procedure that transforms any fixed-sample hypothesis test into an anytime-valid test while ensuring Type-I error control and near-optimal power with substantial sample savings when the null hypothesis is false. At each step, the procedure predicts the probability that a classical test would reject the null hypothesis at its fixed-sample size, treating future observations as missing data under the null hypothesis. Thresholding this probability yields an anytime-valid stopping rule. In areas such as clinical trials, stopping early and safely can ensure that subjects receive the best treatments and accelerate the development of effective therapies.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

FairBED: A Bayesian Experimental Design Approach to Gathering Fairer Data

Frameworks for ensuring fairness in machine learning typically focus on learning fair models from existing data. But this endeavor is often undermined by biases already present in that data. We therefore look to modify the data acquisition process itself to help gather fairer data that is inherently more suitable for training fair predictors. To this end, we introduce FairBED, which provides novel formulations for quantifying the fairness of datasets themselves based on the idea that fair datasets should be uninformative about sensitive attributes. We then use this to construct practical fairness-aware Bayesian experimental design (BED) objectives that maximize expected information gain about the target quantity of interest while minimizing expected information gain about sensitive attributes. We further derive a theoretical link between FairBED and demographic parity, and show empirically that models trained on data gathered using FairBED provide improved fairness-accuracy trade-offs compared to randomly acquired data and conventional BED.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Bayesian Nonparametrics: Principles and Practice

This extended preface [to the Book `Bayesian Nonparametrics', Cambridge University Press, 2010, by NL Hjort, CC Holmes, P Mueller, SG Walker] is meant to explain why you are right to be curious about Bayesian nonparametrics -- why you may actually need it and how you can manage to understand it and use it. The preface also serves as an introductory chapter, giving an overview of the aims and contents of the book. We also explain the background for how the book came into existence, delve briefly on the history of the still relatively young field of Bayesian nonparametrics, and offer some concluding remarks, pertaining to various challenges and likely future developments of the area.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Variational predictive resampling

Bayesian inference provides principled uncertainty quantification, but accurate posterior sampling with MCMC can be computationally prohibitive for modern applications. Variational inference (VI) offers a scalable alternative and often yields accurate predictive distributions, but cheap variational families such as mean-field (MF) can produce over-concentrated approximations that miss posterior dependence. We propose variational predictive resampling (VPR), a scalable posterior sampling method that exploits VI's predictive strength within a predictive-resampling framework to better approximate the Bayesian posterior. Given a prior-likelihood pair, VPR repeatedly imputes future observations from the current variational predictive, updates the variational approximation after each imputation, and records the parameter value implied by the completed sample. We establish conditions under which the law of the parameter returned by VPR is well defined and show that its finite-horizon approximation converges to this limit. In a tractable Gaussian location model, we show that VPR with MF variational predictives converges to the exact Bayesian posterior, whereas the optimal MF-VI approximation retains a non-vanishing asymptotic gap. Experiments on linear regression, logistic regression, and hierarchical linear mixed-effects models demonstrate that VPR substantially improves posterior uncertainty quantification and recovers posterior dependence missed by MF-VI, while remaining computationally competitive with, and often more efficient than, MCMC.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Deconfounding Scores and Representation Learning for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap

Overlap, also known as positivity, is a key condition for causal treatment effect estimation. Many popular estimators suffer from high variance and become brittle when features differ strongly across treatment groups. This is especially challenging in high dimensions: the curse of dimensionality can make overlap implausible. To address this, we propose a class of feature representations called deconfounding scores, which preserve both identification and the target of estimation; the classical propensity and prognostic scores are two special cases. We characterize the problem of finding a representation with better overlap as minimizing an overlap divergence under a deconfounding score constraint. We then derive closed-form expressions for a class of deconfounding scores under a broad family of generalized linear models with Gaussian features and show that prognostic scores are overlap-optimal within this class. We conduct extensive experiments to assess this behavior empirically.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Posterior inference via Hill's prediction model

This paper is concerned with the construction of prior free posterior distributions which rely on the use of one step ahead predictive distribution functions. These are typically more straightforward to motivate than prior distributions. Recent interest has been with Hill's $A_n$ prediction model through what has become known as conformal prediction. This model predicts the next observation to lie with equal probability in the intervals created by the observed data. The prediction model generates complete data sets which can be used to provide posterior inference on any statistic of interest.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Towards Representation Learning for Weighting Problems in Design-Based Causal Inference

Reweighting a distribution to minimize a distance to a target distribution is a powerful and flexible strategy for estimating a wide range of causal effects, but can be challenging in practice because optimal weights typically depend on knowledge of the underlying data generating process. In this paper, we focus on design-based weights, which do not incorporate outcome information; prominent examples include prospective cohort studies, survey weighting, and the weighting portion of augmented weighting estimators. In such applications, we explore the central role of representation learning in finding desirable weights in practice. Unlike the common approach of assuming a well-specified representation, we highlight the error due to the choice of a representation and outline a general framework for finding suitable representations that minimize this error. Building on recent work that combines balancing weights and neural networks, we propose an end-to-end estimation procedure that learns a flexible representation, while retaining promising theoretical properties. We show that this approach is competitive in a range of common causal inference tasks.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Neural Score Matching for High-Dimensional Causal Inference

Traditional methods for matching in causal inference are impractical for high-dimensional datasets. They suffer from the curse of dimensionality: exact matching and coarsened exact matching find exponentially fewer matches as the input dimension grows, and propensity score matching may match highly unrelated units together. To overcome this problem, we develop theoretical results which motivate the use of neural networks to obtain non-trivial, multivariate balancing scores of a chosen level of coarseness, in contrast to the classical, scalar propensity score. We leverage these balancing scores to perform matching for high-dimensional causal inference and call this procedure neural score matching. We show that our method is competitive against other matching approaches on semi-synthetic high-dimensional datasets, both in terms of treatment effect estimation and reducing imbalance.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

A new look at fiducial inference

Since the idea of fiducial inference was put forward by Fisher, researchers have been attempting to place it within a rigorous and well motivated framework. It is fair to say that a general definition has remained elusive. In this paper we start with a representation of Bayesian posterior distributions provided by Doob that relies on martingales. This is explicit in defining how a true parameter value should depend on a random sample and hence an approach to "inverse probability" as originally conceived by Fisher. Taking this as our cue, we introduce a definition of fiducial inference that can be regarded as general.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Is merging worth it? Securely evaluating the information gain for causal dataset acquisition

Merging datasets across institutions is a lengthy and costly procedure, especially when it involves private information. Data hosts may therefore want to prospectively gauge which datasets are most beneficial to merge with, without revealing sensitive information. For causal estimation this is particularly challenging as the value of a merge depends not only on reduction in epistemic uncertainty but also on improvement in overlap. To address this challenge, we introduce the first cryptographically secure information-theoretic approach for quantifying the value of a merge in the context of heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. We do this by evaluating the Expected Information Gain (EIG) using multi-party computation to ensure that no raw data is revealed. We further demonstrate that our approach can be combined with differential privacy (DP) to meet arbitrary privacy requirements whilst preserving more accurate computation compared to DP alone. To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first privacy-preserving method for dataset acquisition tailored to causal estimation. We demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of our method on a range of simulated and realistic benchmarks. Code is publicly available: https://github.com/LucileTerminassian/causal_prospective_merge.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Two-sided conformalized survival analysis

This paper presents a conformal prediction procedure to generate two-sided or one-sided prediction intervals for survival times in the presence of right censoring. Specifically, the method provides two-sided predictive bounds for individuals deemed sufficiently similar to the uncensored population, while returning a lower predictive bound for others. The prediction intervals offer finite-sample coverage guarantees, requiring no distributional assumptions other than the sampled data points are independent and identically distributed. The performance and validity of the procedure is evaluated on both synthetic and real-world datasets.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Targeting relative risk heterogeneity with causal forests

The identification of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) across subgroups is of significant interest in clinical trial analysis. Several state-of-the-art HTE estimation methods, including causal forests, apply recursive partitioning for non-parametric identification of relevant covariates and interactions. However, the partitioning criterion is typically based on differences in absolute risk. This can dilute statistical power by masking variation in the relative risk, which is often a more appropriate quantity of clinical interest. In this work, we propose and implement a methodology for modifying causal forests to target relative risk, using a novel node-splitting procedure based on exhaustive generalized linear model comparison. We present results from simulated data that suggest relative risk causal forests can capture otherwise undetected sources of heterogeneity. We implement our method on real-world trial data to explore HTEs for liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

A general framework for probabilistic model uncertainty

Existing approaches to model uncertainty typically either compare models using a quantitative model selection criterion or evaluate posterior model probabilities having set a prior. In this paper, we propose an alternative strategy which views missing observations as the source of model uncertainty, where the true model would be identified with the complete data. To quantify model uncertainty, it is then necessary to provide a probability distribution for the missing observations conditional on what has been observed. This can be set sequentially using one-step-ahead predictive densities, which recursively sample from the best model according to some consistent model selection criterion. Repeated predictive sampling of the missing data, to give a complete dataset and hence a best model each time, provides our measure of model uncertainty. This approach bypasses the need for subjective prior specification or integration over parameter spaces, addressing issues with standard methods such as the Bayes factor. Predictive resampling also suggests an alternative view of hypothesis testing as a decision problem based on a population statistic, where we directly index the probabilities of competing models. In addition to hypothesis testing, we demonstrate our approach on illustrations from density estimation and variable selection.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Fields of The World: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset For Global Agricultural Field Boundary Segmentation

Crop field boundaries are foundational datasets for agricultural monitoring and assessments but are expensive to collect manually. Machine learning (ML) methods for automatically extracting field boundaries from remotely sensed images could help realize the demand for these datasets at a global scale. However, current ML methods for field instance segmentation lack sufficient geographic coverage, accuracy, and generalization capabilities. Further, research on improving ML methods is restricted by the lack of labeled datasets representing the diversity of global agricultural fields. We present Fields of The World (FTW) -- a novel ML benchmark dataset for agricultural field instance segmentation spanning 24 countries on four continents (Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America). FTW is an order of magnitude larger than previous datasets with 70,462 samples, each containing instance and semantic segmentation masks paired with multi-date, multi-spectral Sentinel-2 satellite images. We provide results from baseline models for the new FTW benchmark, show that models trained on FTW have better zero-shot and fine-tuning performance in held-out countries than models that aren't pre-trained with diverse datasets, and show positive qualitative zero-shot results of FTW models in a real-world scenario -- running on Sentinel-2 scenes over Ethiopia.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Confidence in the Reasoning of Large Language Models

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

On Uncertainty Quantification for Near-Bayes Optimal Algorithms

Bayesian modelling allows for the quantification of predictive uncertainty which is crucial in safety-critical applications. Yet for many machine learning (ML) algorithms, it is difficult to construct or implement their Bayesian counterpart. In this work we present a promising approach to address this challenge, based on the hypothesis that commonly used ML algorithms are efficient across a wide variety of tasks and may thus be near Bayes-optimal w.r.t. an unknown task distribution. We prove that it is possible to recover the Bayesian posterior defined by the task distribution, which is unknown but optimal in this setting, by building a martingale posterior using the algorithm. We further propose a practical uncertainty quantification method that apply to general ML algorithms. Experiments based on a variety of non-NN and NN algorithms demonstrate the efficacy of our method.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

On Subjective Uncertainty Quantification and Calibration in Natural Language Generation

Applications of large language models often involve the generation of free-form responses, in which case uncertainty quantification becomes challenging. This is due to the need to identify task-specific uncertainties (e.g., about the semantics) which appears difficult to define in general cases. This work addresses these challenges from a perspective of Bayesian decision theory, starting from the assumption that our utility is characterized by a similarity measure that compares a generated response with a hypothetical true response. We discuss how this assumption enables principled quantification of the model's subjective uncertainty and its calibration. We further derive a measure for epistemic uncertainty, based on a missing data perspective and its characterization as an excess risk. The proposed methods can be applied to black-box language models. We illustrate the methods on question answering and machine translation tasks. Our experiments provide a principled evaluation of task-specific calibration, and demonstrate that epistemic uncertainty offers a promising deferral strategy for efficient data acquisition in in-context learning.

cs.CL↗