arXiv subjects

Eric A. Vance

Publications and source records attributed to Eric A. Vance.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Same Layout, Different Count: What Number Words Do Past Ten in Text-to-Image Models

Ask SD3.5-Medium for twelve of an object and then, from the same starting noise, for twenty-five. The picture keeps its layout, but the count changes about as much as it would under a new random seed, and in no consistent direction. We study what number words do once a request passes about ten objects, in five open text-to-image models. Holding the object and the starting noise fixed, we change one thing at a time, and people who never see the request count 3,088 of the images. Every model follows the number for small crowds, but only up to a point, its reach: SD3.5-M and FLUX.1-dev stop following it soon after ten, while FLUX.2 [klein] and Qwen-Image follow it loosely up to twenty-five. Beyond SD3.5-M's reach, the coarse part of the starting noise fixes the composition of the picture but not how many objects it holds: redrawing only the noise finer than an eighth of the image keeps the layout as well as a new number does, and already moves the count two-thirds as far. The number word still reaches the denoiser and acts in its first steps, but nothing we tried gives it a clear direction. Shown instead as a noised grid in the starting latent, the count is drawn: people find it in 59% of images, against 4% when it is only told. Past ten, an exact-match score barely separates a model that follows the number loosely from one that ignores it, and a relative-error score can even prefer a constant guess of sixteen. A same-noise test with a few requests per object tells them apart.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

"You" Is Not Toxic: How LLM Labelers Rewrite the Web's Conversation Laws

What the Web community believes about toxic conversations, such as that toxicity rises in longer and deeper threads, was measured mostly with Google's Perspective API, which is shutting down; large language models (LLMs) will make the next measurements. We find that LLM labelers mistake second-person address for toxicity, and that this one bias manufactures laws that human labels do not show. On 1.25 million news comments with crowd labels, Claude Haiku flags 12% of the non-toxic comments that contain no "you" and 51% of those with four or more; a single crowd rater flags 6% and 10%. Deeper replies address someone more often, so under Haiku toxicity rises with reply depth (+0.93 percentage points per level), while under the crowd's labels it slightly declines (-0.12). Rewriting "you" in the third person removes two thirds of the false rise; flagging only as many comments as the crowd does not remove it, and showing Haiku the parent comment enlarges it. All seven LLMs we test over-flag "you", and at the crowd's flag rate, without the parent, any false rise of the open ones vanishes at a fixed number of second-person words; Haiku also over-flags "you" on Reddit, Gab and Wikipedia talk pages. Agreement with human labels does not reveal the bias: we prove that a fixed Cohen's kappa leaves a law nearly unconstrained. We therefore certify the law instead of the labeler. Threadsafe uses the labeler's scores to choose which comments human raters label and to predict the others, and corrects the predictions with the human labels; linear laws are estimated without bias whatever the labeler does. In simulated audits its intervals for the laws keep nominal coverage from 250 labels on, where uniform-sample methods such as PPI++ fall short, and at 1,000 to 8,000 labels are 0.75 times as wide as those of design-based supervised learning (DSL); a thousand human labels rule out Haiku's rising law.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Closing the Gap: Can Novice Statistics and Data Science Students Collaborate as Effectively as an Expert?

The ASCCR (Attitude-Structure-Content-Communication-Relationship) framework was recently developed to teach collaboration skills to statisticians and data scientists. However, its effectiveness in real-world settings has not yet been systematically evaluated. To assess this, we evaluated novice undergraduate and graduate students' performances in initial collaboration meetings with real domain experts and compared them to an expert collaborator. Using video recordings, rubric scores, and domain expert feedback surveys, we found that novices performed surprisingly well compared to the expert. Specifically, novices scored nearly as well as the expert on the Attitude, Structure, and Relationship components of the ASCCR framework. Although novices did not initially perform as well on the Content or Communication aspects, they were able to close the gap. By the end of the collaboration projects, the novices had higher overall domain expert feedback scores than the expert. The primary implication of our study is that novices can become effective collaborators in a very short time. We discuss our findings' practical implications and provide recommendations for integrating the ASCCR framework into statistics and data science collaboration, consulting, and capstone courses.

stat.OT↗

arXiv2022

The Content of Statistics and Data Science Collaborations: the QQQ Framework

For today's applied statisticians and data scientists, collaboration is a reality. Statisticians (and data scientists) may collaborate with domain experts across academic fields, industry sectors, and governmental and non-governmental organizations. Thus, statisticians must develop skills and techniques for collaboration. To this end, we advance a framework called the Qualitative-Quantitative-Qualitative (QQQ, pronounced "Q-Q-Q") approach to systematize the content of statistical collaborations. The QQQ approach explicitly emphasizes the importance of the qualitative context of a project, as well as the qualitative interpretation of quantitative findings. We explain the QQQ approach and each of its components as applied to statistics and data science consultations and collaborations. We provide guidance for implementing each stage of the approach and present data evaluating the effectiveness of teaching the QQQ approach to beginning collaborators.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2019

The ASCCR Frame for Learning Essential Collaboration Skills

Statistics and data science are especially collaborative disciplines that typically require practitioners to interact with many different people or groups. Consequently, interdisciplinary collaboration skills are part of the personal and professional skills essential for success as an applied statistician or data scientist. These skills are learnable and teachable, and learning and improving collaboration skills provides a way to enhance one's practice of statistics and data science. To help individuals learn these skills and organizations to teach them, we have developed a framework covering five essential components of statistical collaboration: Attitude, Structure, Content, Communication, and Relationship. We call this the ASCCR Frame. This framework can be incorporated into formal training programs in the classroom or on the job and can also be used by individuals through self-study. We show how this framework can be applied specifically to statisticians and data scientists to improve their collaboration skills and their interdisciplinary impact. We believe that the ASCCR Frame can help organize and stimulate research and teaching in interdisciplinary collaboration and call on individuals and organizations to begin generating evidence regarding its effectiveness.

stat.OT↗