We study semisupervised mean estimation with a small labeled sample, a large unlabeled sample, and a black-box prediction model whose output may be miscalibrated. A standard approach in this setting is augmented inverse-probability weighting (AIPW) [Robins et al., 1994], which protects against prediction-model misspecification but can be inefficient when the prediction score is poorly aligned with the outcome scale. We introduce Calibrated Prediction-Powered Inference, which post-hoc calibrates the prediction score on the labeled sample before using it for semisupervised estimation. This simple step requires no retraining and can improve the original score both as a predictor of the outcome and as a regression adjustment for semisupervised inference. We study both linear and isotonic calibration. For isotonic calibration, we establish first-order optimality guarantees: isotonic post-processing can improve predictive accuracy and estimator efficiency relative to the original score and simpler post-processing rules, while no further post-processing of the fitted isotonic score yields additional first-order gains. For linear calibration, we show first-order equivalence to PPI++. We also clarify the relationship among existing estimators, showing that the original PPI estimator is a special case of AIPW and can be inefficient when the prediction model is accurate, while PPI++ is AIPW with empirical efficiency maximization [Rubin et al., 2008]. In simulations and real-data experiments, our calibrated estimators often outperform PPI and are competitive with, or outperform, AIPW and PPI++. We provide an accompanying Python package, ppi_aipw, at https://larsvanderlaan.github.io/ppi-aipw/.

Data-driven operations management often relies on parameters estimated from costly human-generated labels. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems offer inexpensive auxiliary data, but introduce a new challenge: AI outputs are not direct observations of the target outcomes, but could involve high-dimensional representations with complex and unknown relationships to human labels. Conventional methods leverage AI predictions as direct proxies for true labels, which can be inefficient or unreliable when this relationship is weak or misspecified. We propose Generative Augmented Inference (GAI), a general framework that incorporates AI-generated outputs as informative features for estimating models of human-labeled outcomes. GAI uses an orthogonal moment construction that enables consistent estimation and valid inference with flexible, nonparametric relationship between LLM-generated outputs and human labels. We establish asymptotic normality and show a "safe default" property: relative to human-data-only estimators, GAI weakly improves estimation efficiency under arbitrary auxiliary signals and yields strict gains whenever the auxiliary information is predictive. Empirically, GAI outperforms benchmarks across diverse settings. In conjoint analysis with weak auxiliary signals, GAI reduces estimation error by about 50% and lowers human labeling requirements by over 75%. In retail pricing, where all methods access the same auxiliary inputs, GAI consistently outperforms alternative estimators, highlighting the value of its construction rather than differences in information. In health insurance choice, it cuts labeling requirements by over 90% while maintaining decision accuracy. Across applications, GAI improves confidence interval coverage without inflating width. Overall, GAI provides a principled and scalable approach to integrating AI-generated information.

Prediction-powered inference (PPI) is a rapidly growing framework for combining machine learning predictions with a small set of gold-standard labels to conduct valid statistical inference. In this article, I argue that the core estimators underlying PPI are equivalent to well-established estimators from the survey sampling literature dating back to the 1970s. Specifically, the PPI estimator for a population mean is algebraically equivalent to the difference estimator of Cassel et al. (1976), and PPI plus corresponds to the generalized regression (GREG) estimator of Sarndal et al. (2003). Recognizing this equivalence, I consider what part of PPI is inherited from a long-standing literature in statistics, what part is genuinely new, and where inferential claims require care. After introducing the two frameworks and establishing their equivalence, I break down where PPI diverges from model-assisted estimation, including differences in the mode of inference, the role of the unlabeled data pool, and the consequences of differential prediction error for subgroup estimands such as the average treatment effect. I then identify what each framework offers the other: PPI researchers can draw on the survey sampling literature's well-developed theory of calibration, optimal allocation, and design-based diagnostics, while survey sampling researchers can benefit from PPI's extensions to non-standard estimands and its accessible software ecosystem. The article closes with a call for integration between these two communities, motivated by the growing use of large language models as measurement instruments in applied research.

Automated seizure detection is of great importance to epilepsy diagnosis and treatment.

Machine learning predictions are increasingly used to supplement incomplete or costly-to-measure outcomes in fields such as biomedical research, environmental science, and social science. However, treating predictions as ground truth introduces bias while ignoring them wastes valuable information. Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) offers a principled framework that leverages predictions from large unlabeled datasets to improve statistical efficiency while maintaining valid inference through explicit bias correction using a smaller labeled subset. Despite its potential, the growing PPI variants and the subtle distinctions between them have made it challenging for practitioners to determine when and how to apply these methods responsibly. This paper demystifies PPI by synthesizing its theoretical foundations, methodological extensions, connections to existing statistics literature, and diagnostic tools into a unified practical workflow. Using the Mosaiks housing price data, we show that PPI variants produce tighter confidence intervals than complete-case analysis, but that double-dipping, i.e. reusing training data for inference, leads to anti-conservative confidence intervals and coverages. Under missing-not-at-random mechanisms, all methods, including classical inference using only labeled data, yield biased estimates. We provide a decision flowchart linking assumption violations to appropriate PPI variants, a summary table of selective methods, and practical diagnostic strategies for evaluating core assumptions. By framing PPI as a general recipe rather than a single estimator, this work bridges methodological innovation and applied practice, helping researchers responsibly integrate predictions into valid inference.

How to Choose a Computer Monitor You Won't Hate in a Few Years PC monitors are cheaper, faster, and more beautiful than ever. Here's how to pick one that will suit your needs and budget. Most people treat their monitor like a printer. They just want it to work without having to think about it. But if you work from home or spend hours gaming every night, it's worth an upgrade. And that's where things can get complicated. Do you pay extra for more ports?

Automated seizure detection is of great importance to epilepsy diagnosis and treatment.

Large language models (LLMs) offer an inexpensive yet powerful way to annotate text, but are often inconsistent when compared with experts. These errors can bias downstream estimates of population parameters such as regression coefficients and causal effects. To mitigate this bias, researchers have developed debiasing methods such as Design-based Supervised Learning (DSL) and Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI), which promise valid estimation by combining LLM annotations with a limited number of expensive expert annotations. Although these methods produce consistent estimates under theoretical assumptions, it is unknown how they compare in finite samples of sizes encountered in applied research. We make two contributions. First, we study how each methods performance scales with the number of expert annotations, highlighting regimes where LLM bias or limited expert labels significantly affect results. Second, we compare DSL and PPI across a range of tasks, finding that although both achieve low bias with large datasets, DSL often outperforms PPI on bias reduction and empirical efficiency, but its performance is less consistent across datasets. Our findings indicate that there is a bias-variance tradeoff at the level of debiasing methods, calling for more research on developing metrics for quantifying their efficiency in finite samples.

This paper introduces Democracy-in-Silico, an agent-based simulation where societies of advanced AI agents, imbued with complex psychological personas, govern themselves under different institutional frameworks. We explore what it means to be human in an age of AI by tasking Large Language Models (LLMs) to embody agents with traumatic memories, hidden agendas, and psychological triggers. These agents engage in deliberation, legislation, and elections under various stressors, such as budget crises and resource scarcity. We present a novel metric, the Power-Preservation Index (PPI), to quantify misaligned behavior where agents prioritize their own power over public welfare. Our findings demonstrate that institutional design, specifically the combination of a Constitutional AI (CAI) charter and a mediated deliberation protocol, serves as a potent alignment mechanism. These structures significantly reduce corrupt power-seeking behavior, improve policy stability, and enhance citizen welfare compared to less constrained democratic models. The simulation reveals that an institutional design may offer a framework for aligning the complex, emergent behaviors of future artificial agent societies, forcing us to reconsider what human rituals and responsibilities are essential in an age of shared authorship with non-human entities.

Prediction-powered inference (PPI) is a recent framework for valid statistical inference with partially labeled data, combining model-based predictions on a large unlabeled set with bias correction from a smaller labeled subset. We show that PPI can be extended to handle informative labeling by replacing its unweighted bias-correction term with an inverse probability weighted (IPW) version, using the classical Horvitz--Thompson or Hájek forms. This connection unites design-based survey sampling ideas with modern prediction-assisted inference, yielding estimators that remain valid when labeling probabilities vary across units. We consider the common setting where the inclusion probabilities are not known but estimated from a correctly specified model. In simulations, the performance of IPW-adjusted PPI with estimated propensities closely matches the known-probability case, retaining both nominal coverage and the variance-reduction benefits of PPI.