arXiv subjects

Tamara Broderick

Publications and source records attributed to Tamara Broderick.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Curious Case of the Default Settings: Evaluating Default Performance of Variational Inference Software

We systematically evaluate a suite of off-the-shelf variational inference (VI) software packages from the perspective of a standard practitioner. Using simple analytic benchmark models, we assess the accuracy and stability of the default VI settings in PyMC, NumPyro, and TensorFlow Probability. Unlike previous research focusing on methodological advances, our evaluation emphasizes software implementation and the default configurations that typical users encounter. Our results show that default settings can yield biased approximations of posterior summaries even for simple one-dimensional conjugate models, controls of initialization and transformations differ between software implementations, and relying on defaults may yield silent failures or poor approximations.

stat.CO↗

arXiv2026

It's Complicated: On the Design and Evaluation of AI-Powered AAC Interfaces

Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance what people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) are able to do with their systems. However, evaluating AI-powered AAC interfaces can be difficult. People are intersectional beings and current evaluation metrics can struggle to capture the multifaceted and nuanced desires people may have for their AAC. We explore the complicated nature of six AAC problem spaces, explore how AI might be used in these spaces, and suggest more robust methods of evaluation that take the intersectional nuances of people into account. We also discuss broader issues that arise across these problem spaces and how they could be addressed using our proposed evaluation methods.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Navigating the Conceptual Multiverse

When language models answer open-ended problems, they implicitly make hidden decisions that shape their outputs, leaving users with uncontextualized answers rather than a working map of the problem; drawing on multiverse analysis from statistics, we build and evaluate the conceptual multiverse, an interactive system that represents conceptual decisions such as how to frame a question or what to value as a space users can transparently inspect, intervenably change, and check against principled domain reasoning; for this structure to be worth navigating rather than misleading, it must be rigorous and checkable against domain reasoning norms, so we develop a general verification framework that enforces properties of good decision structures like unambiguity and completeness calibrated by expert-level reasoning; across three domains, the conceptual multiverse helped participants develop a working map of the problem, with philosophy students rewriting essays with sharper framings and reversed theses, alignment annotators moving from surface preferences to reasoning about user intent and harm, and poets identifying compositional patterns that clarified their taste.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Do covariates explain why these groups differ? The choice of reference group can reverse conclusions in the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition

Scientists often want to explain why an outcome is different in two groups. For instance, differences in patient mortality rates across two hospitals could be due to differences in the patients themselves (covariates) or differences in medical care (outcomes given covariates). The Oaxaca--Blinder decomposition (OBD) is a standard tool to tease apart these factors. It is well known that the OBD requires choosing one of the groups as a reference, and the numerical answer can vary with the reference. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic investigation into whether the choice of OBD reference can yield different substantive conclusions and how common this issue is. In the present paper, we give existence proofs in real and simulated data that the OBD references can in fact yield substantively different conclusions. Our empirical exercises find that this sensitivity is more common when the OBD is extended to more complex regression models, including a pretrained transformer. Our theoretical and empirical results together establish that these conclusion reversals are not entirely driven by model misspecification, small data, or adversarial parameter choices. Our results suggest that practitioners should always report both directions of the OBD; that modern machine learning and large datasets do not automatically resolve the conclusion reversal problem; and that further work on this problem is needed.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Do LLMs Benefit From Their Own Words?

In multi-turn conversations, large language models typically condition on the full conversation history: both past user prompts and assistant responses. We revisit this design choice by comparing full-context prompting to four alternative, substantially-reduced context configurations. Analyzing in-the-wild multi-turn conversations across three open reasoning and one state-of-the-art model, we find that response quality is largely preserved under aggressive context filtering: replacing all prior assistant turns with one-sentence summaries or keeping only the most recent user--assistant exchange often matches storing full context in performance while using roughly 8x less context. To understand this result, we observe that a substantial fraction of user turns (36.4%) in multi-turn conversations are self-contained and that many follow-up turns can be addressed by seeing only the immediately preceding user--assistant exchange. Furthermore, we find that when models condition on their own past responses, this can lead to context pollution, a phenomenon in which reasoning errors, hallucinations, or stylistic artifacts propagate across turns. Motivated by these findings, we design a context-filtering approach that selectively omits the assistant-side history. Taken together, these findings suggest moving away from storing full dialogue transcripts and instead retaining only what is relevant.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Network and Risk Analysis of Surety Bonds

Surety bonds are financial agreements between a contractor (principal) and obligee (project owner) to complete a project. However, most large-scale projects involve multiple contractors, creating a network and introducing the possibility of incomplete obligations to propagate and result in project failures. Typical models for risk assessment assume independent failure probabilities within each contractor. However, we take a network approach, modeling the contractor network as a directed graph where nodes represent contractors and project owners and edges represent contractual obligations with associated financial records. To understand risk propagation throughout the contractor network, we extend the celebrated Friedkin-Johnsen model and introduce a stochastic process to simulate principal failures across the network. From a theoretical perspective, we show that under natural monotonicity conditions on the contractor network, incorporating network effects leads to increases in the average risk for the surety organization. We further use data from a partnering insurance company to validate our findings, estimating an approximately 2% higher exposure when accounting for network effects.

q-fin.RM↗

arXiv2025

Wrong Model, Right Uncertainty: Spatial Associations for Discrete Data with Misspecification

Scientists are often interested in estimating an association between a covariate and a binary- or count-valued response. For instance, public health officials are interested in how much disease presence (a binary response per individual) varies as temperature or pollution (covariates) increases. Many existing methods can be used to estimate associations, and corresponding uncertainty intervals, but make unrealistic assumptions in the spatial domain. For instance, they incorrectly assume models are well-specified. Or they assume the training and target locations are i.i.d. -- whereas in practice, these locations are often not even randomly sampled. Some recent work avoids these assumptions but works only for continuous responses with spatially constant noise. In the present work, we provide the first confidence intervals with guaranteed asymptotic nominal coverage for spatial associations given discrete responses, even under simultaneous model misspecification and nonrandom sampling of spatial locations. To do so, we demonstrate how to handle spatially varying noise, provide a novel proof of consistency for our proposed estimator, and use a delta method argument with a Lyapunov central limit theorem. We show empirically that standard approaches can produce unreliable confidence intervals and can even get the sign of an association wrong, while our method reliably provides correct coverage.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings

We propose a method for evaluating the robustness of widely used LLM ranking systems -- variants of a Bradley--Terry model -- to dropping a worst-case very small fraction of preference data. Our approach is computationally fast and easy to adopt. When we apply our method to matchups from popular LLM ranking platforms, including Chatbot Arena and derivatives, we find that the rankings of top-performing models can be remarkably sensitive to the removal of a small fraction of preferences; for instance, dropping just 0.003% of human preferences can change the top-ranked model on Chatbot Arena. Our robustness check identifies the specific preferences most responsible for such ranking flips, allowing for inspection of these influential preferences. We observe that the rankings derived from MT-bench preferences are notably more robust than those from Chatbot Arena, likely due to MT-bench's use of expert annotators and carefully constructed prompts. Finally, we find that neither rankings based on crowdsourced human evaluations nor those based on LLM-as-a-judge preferences are systematically more sensitive than the other.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Oh SnapMMD! Forecasting Stochastic Dynamics Beyond the Schr\"odinger Bridge's End

Scientists often want to make predictions beyond the observed time horizon of "snapshot" data following latent stochastic dynamics. For example, in time course single-cell mRNA profiling, scientists have access to cellular transcriptional state measurements (snapshots) from different biological replicates at different time points, but they cannot access the trajectory of any one cell because measurement destroys the cell. Researchers want to forecast (e.g.) differentiation outcomes from early state measurements of stem cells. Recent Schr\"odinger-bridge (SB) methods are natural for interpolating between snapshots. But past SB papers have not addressed forecasting -- likely since existing methods either (1) reduce to following pre-set reference dynamics (chosen before seeing data) or (2) require the user to choose a fixed, state-independent volatility since they minimize a Kullback-Leibler divergence. Either case can lead to poor forecasting quality. In the present work, we propose a new framework, SnapMMD, that learns dynamics by directly fitting the joint distribution of both state measurements and observation time with a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) loss. Unlike past work, our method allows us to infer unknown and state-dependent volatilities from the observed data. We show in a variety of real and synthetic experiments that our method delivers accurate forecasts. Moreover, our approach allows us to learn in the presence of incomplete state measurements and yields an $R^2$-style statistic that diagnoses fit. We also find that our method's performance at interpolation (and general velocity-field reconstruction) is at least as good as (and often better than) state-of-the-art in almost all of our experiments.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Common Functional Decompositions Can Mis-attribute Differences in Outcomes Between Populations

In science and social science, we often wish to explain why an outcome is different in two populations. For instance, if a jobs program benefits members of one city more than another, is that due to differences in program participants (particular covariates) or the local labor markets (outcomes given covariates)? The Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder (KOB) decomposition is a standard tool in econometrics that explains the difference in the mean outcome across two populations. However, the KOB decomposition assumes a linear relationship between covariates and outcomes, while the true relationship may be meaningfully nonlinear. Modern machine learning boasts a variety of nonlinear functional decompositions for the relationship between outcomes and covariates in one population. It seems natural to extend the KOB decomposition using these functional decompositions. We observe that a successful extension should not attribute the differences to covariates -- or, respectively, to outcomes given covariates -- if those are the same in the two populations. Unfortunately, we demonstrate that, even in simple examples, two common decompositions -- functional ANOVA and Accumulated Local Effects -- can attribute differences to outcomes given covariates, even when they are identical in two populations. We provide a characterization of when functional ANOVA misattributes, as well as a general property that any discrete decomposition must satisfy to avoid misattribution. We show that if the decomposition is independent of its input distribution, it does not misattribute. We further conjecture that misattribution arises in any reasonable additive decomposition that depends on the distribution of the covariates.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Wild posteriors in the wild

Bayesian posterior approximation has become more accessible to practitioners than ever, thanks to modern black-box software. While these tools provide highly accurate approximations with minimal user effort, certain posterior geometries remain notoriously difficult for standard methods. As a result, research into alternative approximation techniques continues to flourish. In many papers, authors validate their new approaches by testing them on posterior shapes deemed challenging or "wild." However, these shapes are not always directly linked to real-world applications where they naturally occur. In this note, we present examples of practical applications that give rise to some commonly used benchmark posterior shapes.

stat.CO↗

arXiv2025

Smooth Sailing: Lipschitz-Driven Uncertainty Quantification for Spatial Association

Estimating associations between spatial covariates and responses - rather than merely predicting responses - is central to environmental science, epidemiology, and economics. For instance, public health officials might be interested in whether air pollution has a strictly positive association with a health outcome, and the magnitude of any effect. Standard machine learning methods often provide accurate predictions but offer limited insight into covariate-response relationships. And we show that existing methods for constructing confidence (or credible) intervals for associations can fail to provide nominal coverage in the face of model misspecification and nonrandom locations - despite both being essentially always present in spatial problems. We introduce a method that constructs valid frequentist confidence intervals for associations in spatial settings. Our method requires minimal assumptions beyond a form of spatial smoothness and a homoskedastic Gaussian error assumption. In particular, we do not require model correctness or covariate overlap between training and target locations. Our approach is the first to guarantee nominal coverage in this setting and outperforms existing techniques in both real and simulated experiments. Our confidence intervals are valid in finite samples when the noise of the Gaussian error is known, and we provide an asymptotically consistent estimation procedure for this noise variance when it is unknown.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Are Hourly PM2.5 Forecasts Sufficiently Accurate to Plan Your Day? Individual Decision Making in the Face of Increasing Wildfire Smoke

Wildfire frequency is increasing as the climate changes, and the resulting air pollution poses health risks. Just as people routinely use hourly weather forecasts to plan their day's activities around precipitation, reliable hourly air quality forecasts could help individuals reduce their exposure to air pollution. In the present work, we evaluate six existing forecasts of ground-level fine particulate matter (PM2.5) within the continental United States during the 2023 fire season. We include forecasts using physical simulation, ensembling, and artificial intelligence. We focus our evaluation on individual decisions, such as (1) whether to go outside on a day with potentially high PM2.5 or (2) when to go outside for the lowest PM2.5 exposure. Our evaluation consists of both visualizations of hourly PM2.5 forecasts in particular locations as well as metrics summarizing forecast skill for the two tasks above. As part of our analysis, we introduce a new evaluation metric for the task of deciding when to go outside. We find meaningful room for improvement in PM2.5 forecasting, which might be realized by improving physical models, incorporating more data sources, and using artificial intelligence tools.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Approximations to worst-case data dropping: unmasking failure modes

A data analyst might worry about generalization if dropping a very small fraction of data points from a study could change its substantive conclusions. Checking this non-robustness directly poses a combinatorial optimization problem and is intractable even for simple models and moderate data sizes. Recently various authors have proposed a diverse set of approximations to detect this non-robustness. In the present work, we show that, even in a setting as simple as ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression, many of these approximations can fail to detect (true) non-robustness in realistic data arrangements. We focus on OLS in the present work due its widespread use and since some approximations work only for OLS. Across our synthetic and real-world data sets, we find that a simple recursive greedy algorithm is the sole algorithm that does not fail any of our tests and also that it can be orders of magnitude faster to run than some competitors.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Sensitivity of MCMC-based analyses to small-data removal

If the conclusion of a data analysis is sensitive to dropping very few data points, that conclusion might hinge on the particular data at hand rather than representing a more broadly applicable truth. How could we check whether this sensitivity holds? One idea is to consider every small subset of data, drop it from the dataset, and re-run our analysis. But running MCMC to approximate a Bayesian posterior is already very expensive; running multiple times is prohibitive, and the number of re-runs needed here is combinatorially large. Recent work proposes a fast and accurate approximation to find the worst-case dropped data subset, but that work was developed for problems based on estimating equations -- and does not directly handle Bayesian posterior approximations using MCMC. We make two principal contributions in the present work. We adapt the existing data-dropping approximation to estimators computed via MCMC. Observing that Monte Carlo errors induce variability in the approximation, we use a variant of the bootstrap to quantify this uncertainty. We demonstrate how to use our approximation in practice to determine whether there is non-robustness in a problem. Empirically, our method is accurate in simple models, such as linear regression. In models with complicated structure, such as hierarchical models, the performance of our method is mixed.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Multi-marginal Schr\"odinger Bridges with Iterative Reference Refinement

Practitioners often aim to infer an unobserved population trajectory using sample snapshots at multiple time points. E.g., given single-cell sequencing data, scientists would like to learn how gene expression changes over a cell's life cycle. But sequencing any cell destroys that cell. So we can access data for any particular cell only at a single time point, but we have data across many cells. The deep learning community has recently explored using Schr\"odinger bridges (SBs) and their extensions in similar settings. However, existing methods either (1) interpolate between just two time points or (2) require a single fixed reference dynamic (often set to Brownian motion within SBs). But learning piecewise from adjacent time points can fail to capture long-term dependencies. And practitioners are typically able to specify a model family for the reference dynamic but not the exact values of the parameters within it. So we propose a new method that (1) learns the unobserved trajectories from sample snapshots across multiple time points and (2) requires specification only of a family of reference dynamics, not a single fixed one. We demonstrate the advantages of our method on simulated and real data.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Double trouble: Predicting new variant counts across two heterogeneous populations

Collecting genomics data across multiple heterogeneous populations (e.g., across different cancer types) has the potential to improve our understanding of disease. Despite sequencing advances, though, resources often remain a constraint when gathering data. So it would be useful for experimental design if experimenters with access to a pilot study could predict the number of new variants they might expect to find in a follow-up study: both the number of new variants shared between the populations and the total across the populations. While many authors have developed prediction methods for the single-population case, we show that these predictions can fare poorly across multiple populations that are heterogeneous. We prove that, surprisingly, a natural extension of a state-of-the-art single-population predictor to multiple populations fails for fundamental reasons. We provide the first predictor for the number of new shared variants and new total variants that can handle heterogeneity in multiple populations. We show that our proposed method works well empirically using real cancer and population genetics data.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Consistent Validation for Predictive Methods in Spatial Settings

Spatial prediction tasks are key to weather forecasting, studying air pollution impacts, and other scientific endeavors. Determining how much to trust predictions made by statistical or physical methods is essential for the credibility of scientific conclusions. Unfortunately, classical approaches for validation fail to handle mismatch between locations available for validation and (test) locations where we want to make predictions. This mismatch is often not an instance of covariate shift (as commonly formalized) because the validation and test locations are fixed (e.g., on a grid or at select points) rather than i.i.d. from two distributions. In the present work, we formalize a check on validation methods: that they become arbitrarily accurate as validation data becomes arbitrarily dense. We show that classical and covariate-shift methods can fail this check. We propose a method that builds from existing ideas in the covariate-shift literature, but adapts them to the validation data at hand. We prove that our proposal passes our check. And we demonstrate its advantages empirically on simulated and real data.

stat.ML↗