arXiv:2606. 30372v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantitative research across the social and behavioral sciences depends on human subject experiments that are expensive, slow, and subject to sampling bias.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2602. 16061v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Estimating population quantities such as mean outcomes from user feedback is fundamental to platform evaluation and social science, yet feedback is often missing not at random (MNAR): users with stronger opinions are more likely to respond, so standard estimators are biased and the estimand is not identified without additional assumptions.
arXiv:2607. 18454v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Quantifying the risk of rare failures in language models, such as those triggered by adversarial distribution shifts or very large-scale deployments, requires estimating probabilities far too small for random sampling.
arXiv:2209. 01754v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The empirical risk minimization approach to data-driven decision making requires access to training data drawn under the same conditions as those that will be faced when the decision rule is deployed.
arXiv:2604. 10727v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Classical information-theoretic learning bounds typically rely on KL mutual information and moment-generating-function (MGF) arguments, which are well matched to bounded or sub-Gaussian losses but can be ineffective when losses or rewards are heavy-tailed.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently portrayed as general-purpose solvers capable of solving arbitrary tasks. We argue that this view overlooks a fundamental constraint: language is a compressed and capacity-limited interface for conveying task information.
arXiv:2604. 17267v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models can generate synthetic survey responses at low cost, but their accuracy varies unpredictably across questions.