arXiv Machine Learning

Designing Experiments for External Decision Makers

The paper introduces usage‑aware experimental design, a framework that extends standard Bayesian experimental design to settings where external decision makers act on collected data. It trains adaptive design policies to minimise the experimenter’s expected loss under external rules, which may be non‑Bayesian or black‑box. The authors show that more informative data can be harmful under such rules, so usage risk cannot be expressed as expected uncertainty reduction, thereby generalising standard BED.

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 19

Robust Experimental Design via Generalised Bayesian Inference

The paper introduces Generalised Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design (GBOED), extending generalised Bayesian inference to experimental design. It replaces the likelihood in Bayesian updates with a loss function, deriving a new acquisition function called Gibbs expected information gain. Empirical results show that GBOED improves robustness against outliers and mis-specified outcome noise distributions.

By Yasir Zubayr Barlas, Sabina J. Sloman, Samuel Kaski
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 29

Offline Policy Evaluation as a decision support tool for designing Adaptive Experiments

The paper explores how data from fixed A/B tests can guide the deployment of adaptive experiments using contextual bandits. By combining off‑policy evaluation with a controlled warm‑start simulation, the authors rank pre‑specified adaptive and non‑adaptive policies using doubly robust estimators. Experiments on synthetic trials and real benchmarks show that adaptive, context‑aware policies outperform fixed allocations when heterogeneity exists, but offer little advantage otherwise.

By Jo\~ao Victor Ferreira Alves, Eduardo Rocha Laurentino, Gustavo de Oliveira Kanno, Thiago Costa Rizuti da Rocha
arXiv AI
Jun 15

CARE: Controlling LLM-Generated Policies through Auditable Review of Evidence in Scientific Experimentation

arXiv:2606. 14581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Granting LLMs direct control over costly, irreversible scientific experiments leads to unsafe exploration and unstable performance, but discarding LLM creativity entirely sacrifices significant optimization potential.

By Guanyu Liu, Weiyi Kong, Zeyu Wang, Boer Zhang, Baiqing Li, Peiyu Zhang, Tianyu Shi
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 10

Bayesian Experimental Design via Score Matching

arXiv:2607. 08335v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Policy-based approaches to Bayesian experimental design (BED) allow the learning of deep policy networks that adaptively make intelligent design decisions based on previously collected data.

By Angus Phillips, Gavin Kerrigan, Tom Rainforth
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 21

Deep Adaptive Bayesian Screening

arXiv:2607. 16927v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce Deep Adaptive Bayesian Screening (DABS), a method for performing adaptive factorial screening in high-dimensional discrete design spaces.

By Jade Lejeune Herman, Arno Strouwen, Johan A. K. Suykens, Peter Goos
arXiv AI
Oct 16

Amortizing Sequential Experimental Design in Reasoning LLMs

The paper proposes a method to embed sequential Bayesian experimental design (BED) into large language models (LLMs) by training the models to reason about action selection using information-gain rewards. By specifying the experimental generative model separately from the LLM’s beliefs, the authors optimize expected information gain under a chosen model. Experiments on the Twenty Questions task show that the resulting policies outperform both inference- and training-time BED baselines while incurring lower computational costs, and the approach generalizes to unseen categories and transfers positively to the Medi-Q clinical dialogue benchmark.

By Anita Kriz, Antonin Berthon, Nicol\'as Astorga, Mihaela van der Schaar
arXiv AI
Oct 19

Exploration and Experimentation with a Misspecified Simulator

The paper investigates how to collect data for recalibrating a misspecified simulator that models a partially observed real-world system as a fully observed Markovian process. It compares four data‑collection strategies: never recalibrating, passive on‑policy recalibration, continuous exploration across all units, and randomized experimentation on a sample of units. Theoretical analysis and a vending‑machine simulation show that experimentation can outperform passive adaptation when drift is invisible to on‑policy data or when recalibration lags behind ongoing drift, while exploration is preferable when trying worse actions is costly and dynamics may not have changed.

By Harsh Parikh, Gabriel Levin-Konigsberg, Sohrab Andaz, Akhil Bagaria, Dominique Perrault-Joncas, Alexander Volfovsky