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.

Checklists are simple decision aids that are often used to promote safety and reliability in clinical applications. In this paper, we present a method to learn checklists for clinical decision support. We represent predictive checklists as discrete linear classifiers with binary features and unit weights.

Machine learning (ML) models are only as good as the data they are trained on. But recent studies have found datasets widely used to train and evaluate ML models, e.g., to have pervasive labeling errors. Erroneous labels on the train set hurt ML models' ability to generalize, and they impact evaluation and model selection using the test set. Consequently, learning in the presence of labeling errors is an active area of research, yet this field lacks a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate these methods. Most of these methods are evaluated on a few computer vision datasets with significant variance in the experimental protocols. With such a large pool of methods and inconsistent evaluation, it is also unclear how ML practitioners can choose the right models to assess label quality in their data. To this end, we propose a benchmarking environment to rigorously evaluate methods that enable machine learning in the presence of label noise. We also introduce a design space to delineate concrete design choices of label error detection models. We hope that our proposed design space and benchmark enable practitioners to choose the right tools to improve their label quality and that our benchmark enables objective and rigorous evaluation of machine learning tools facing mislabeled data.

Explainable AI (XAI) is a rapidly growing domain with a myriad of proposed methods as well as metrics aiming to evaluate their efficacy. However, current studies are often of limited scope, examining only a handful of XAI methods and ignoring underlying design parameters for performance, such as the model architecture or the nature of input data. Moreover, they often rely on one or a few metrics and neglect thorough validation, increasing the risk of selection bias and ignoring discrepancies among metrics. These shortcomings leave practitioners confused about which method to choose for their problem. In response, we introduce LATEC, a large-scale benchmark that critically evaluates 17 prominent XAI methods using 20 distinct metrics.

Evaluating new techniques on realistic datasets plays a crucial role in the development of ML research and its broader adoption by practitioners. In recent years, there has been a significant increase of publicly available unstructured data resources for computer vision and NLP tasks. However, tabular data -- which is prevalent in many high-stakes domains -- has been lagging behind. To bridge this gap, we present Bank Account Fraud (BAF), the first publicly available 1 privacy-preserving, large-scale, realistic suite of tabular datasets. The suite was generated by applying state-of-the-art tabular data generation techniques on an anonymized,real-world bank account opening fraud detection dataset. This setting carries a set of challenges that are commonplace in real-world applications, including temporal dynamics and significant class imbalance. Additionally, to allow practitioners to stress test both performance and fairness of ML methods, each dataset variant of BAF contains specific types of data bias. With this resource, we aim to provide the research community with a more realistic, complete, and robust test bed to evaluate novel and existing methods.

There is a disconnect between how researchers and practitioners handle privacy-utility tradeoffs. Researchers primarily operate from a privacy first perspective, setting strict privacy requirements and minimizing risk subject to these constraints. Practitioners often desire an accuracy first perspective, possibly satisfied with the greatest privacy they can get subject to obtaining sufficiently small error. Ligett et al. have introduced a `noise reduction algorithm to address the latter perspective. The authors show that by adding correlated Laplace noise and progressively reducing it on demand, it is possible to produce a sequence of increasingly accurate estimates of a private parameter and only pay a privacy cost for the least noisy iterate released.

While the global integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into veterinary medicine is accelerating, its adoption dynamics in major markets such as China remain uncharacterized. This paper presents the first exploratory analysis of AI perception and adoption among veterinary professionals in China, based on a cross-sectional survey of 455 practitioners conducted in mid-2025. We identify a distinct "adoption paradox": although 71.0% of respondents have incorporated AI into their workflows, 44.6% of these active users report low familiarity with the technology. In contrast to the administrative-focused patterns observed in North America, adoption in China is practitioner-driven and centers on core clinical tasks, such as disease diagnosis (50.1%) and prescription calculation (44.8%). However, concerns regarding reliability and accuracy remain the primary barrier (54.3%), coexisting with a strong consensus (93.8%) for regulatory oversight. These findings suggest a unique "inside-out" integration model in China, characterized by high clinical utility but restricted by an "interpretability gap," underscoring the need for specialized tools and robust regulatory frameworks to safely harness AI's potential in this expanding market.

Design Rationale (DR) for software architecture decisions refers to the reasoning underlying architectural choices, which provides valuable insights into the different phases of the architecting process throughout software development. However, in practice, DR is often inadequately documented due to a lack of motivation and effort from developers. With the recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their capabilities in text comprehension, reasoning, and generation may enable the generation and recovery of DR for architecture decisions. In this study, we evaluated the performance of LLMs in generating DR for architecture decisions. First, we collected 50 Stack Overflow (SO) posts, 25 GitHub issues, and 25 GitHub discussions related to architecture decisions to construct a dataset of 100 architecture-related problems. Then, we selected five LLMs to generate DR for the architecture decisions with three prompting strategies, including zero-shot, chain of thought (CoT), and LLM-based agents. With the DR provided by human experts as ground truth, the Precision of LLM-generated DR with the three prompting strategies ranges from 0.267 to 0.278, Recall from 0.627 to 0.715, and F1-score from 0.351 to 0.389. Additionally, 64.45% to 69.42% of the arguments of DR not mentioned by human experts are also helpful, 4.12% to 4.87% of the arguments have uncertain correctness, and 1.59% to 3.24% of the arguments are potentially misleading. To further understand the trustworthiness and applicability of LLM-generated DR in practice, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six practitioners. Based on the experimental and interview results, we discussed the pros and cons of the three prompting strategies, the strengths and limitations of LLM-generated DR, and the implications for the practical use of LLM-generated DR.

As large language models become components of larger agentic systems, evaluation reliability becomes critical: unreliable sub-agents introduce brittleness into downstream system behavior. Yet current evaluation practice, reporting a single accuracy number from a single run, obscures the variance underlying these results, making it impossible to distinguish genuine capability improvements from lucky sampling. We propose adopting Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), a metric from measurement science, to characterize this variance. ICC decomposes observed variance into between-query variance (task difficulty) and within-query variance (agent inconsistency), highlighting whether reported results reflect true capability or measurement noise. We evaluated on GAIA (Levels 1-3, measuring agentic capabilities across varying reasoning complexity) and FRAMES (measuring retrieval and factuality across multiple documents). We found that ICC varies dramatically with task structure, with reasoning and retrieval tasks (FRAMES) exhibit ICC=0.4955-0.7118 across models, and agentic tasks (GAIA) exhibiting ICC=0.304-0.774 across models. For sub-agent replacement decisions in agentic systems, accuracy improvements are only trustworthy if ICC also improves. We demonstrate that ICC converges by n=8-16 trials for structured tasks and n>=32 for complex reasoning, enabling practitioners to set evidence-based resampling budgets. We recommend reporting accuracy alongside ICC and within-query variance as standard practice, and propose updated Evaluation Cards capturing these metrics. By making evaluation stability visible, we aim to transform agentic benchmarking from opaque leaderboard competition to trustworthy experimental science. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/youdotcom-oss/stochastic-agent-evals.