Selection bias arises when the probability that an observation enters a dataset depends on variables related to the quantities of interest, leading to systematic distortions in estimation and uncertainty quantification. For example, in epidemiological or survey settings, individuals with certain outcomes may be more likely to be included, resulting in biased prevalence estimates with potentially substantial downstream impact. Classical corrections, such as inverse-probability weighting or explicit likelihood-based models of the selection process, rely on tractable likelihoods, which limits their applicability in complex stochastic models with latent dynamics or high-dimensional structure. Simulation-based inference enables Bayesian analysis without tractable likelihoods but typically assumes missingness at random and thus fails when selection depends on unobserved outcomes or covariates. Here, we develop a bias-aware simulation-based inference framework that explicitly incorporates selection into neural posterior estimation. By embedding the selection mechanism directly into the generative simulator, the approach enables amortized Bayesian inference without requiring tractable likelihoods. This recasting of selection bias as part of the simulation process allows us to both obtain debiased estimates and explicitly test for the presence of bias. The framework integrates diagnostics to detect discrepancies between simulated and observed data and to assess posterior calibration. The method recovers well-calibrated posterior distributions across three statistical applications with diverse selection mechanisms, including settings in which likelihood-based approaches yield biased estimates. These results recast the correction of selection bias as a simulation problem and establish simulation-based inference as a practical and testable strategy for parameter estimation under selection bias.

Accurately identifying patients with specific medical conditions is a key challenge when using clinical data from electronic health records. Our objective was to comprehensively assess when weakly-supervised prediction methods, which use silver-standard labels (proxy measures of the true outcome) rather than gold-standard true labels, perform well in rare-outcome settings like vaccine safety studies. We compared three methods (PheNorm, MAP, and sureLDA) that combine structured features and features derived from clinical text using natural language processing, through an extensive simulation study with data-generating mechanisms ranging from simple to complex, varying outcome rates, and varying degrees of informative silver labels. We also considered using predicted probabilities to design a chart review validation study. No single method dominated the other across all prediction performance metrics. Probability-guided sampling selected a cohort enriched for patients with more mentions of important concepts in chart notes. SureLDA, the most complex of the three algorithms we considered, often performed well in simulations. Performance depended greatly on selected tuning parameters. Care should be taken when using weakly-supervised prediction methods in rare-outcome settings, particularly if the probabilities will be used in downstream analysis, but these methods can work well when silver labels are strong predictors of true outcomes.

Scientific discovery increasingly relies on AI systems to select candidates for expensive experimental validation, yet no principled, budget-aware evaluation framework exists for comparing selection strategies -- a gap intensified by large language models (LLMs), which generate plausible scientific proposals without reliable downstream evaluation. We introduce the Budget-Sensitive Discovery Score (BSDS), a formally verified metric -- 20 theorems machine-checked by the Lean 4 proof assistant -- that jointly penalizes false discoveries (lambda-weighted FDR) and excessive abstention (gamma-weighted coverage gap) at each budget level. Its budget-averaged form, the Discovery Quality Score (DQS), provides a single summary statistic that no proposer can inflate by performing well at a cherry-picked budget. As a case study, we apply BSDS/DQS to: do LLMs add marginal value to an existing ML pipeline for drug discovery candidate selection? We evaluate 39 proposers -- 11 mechanistic variants, 14 zero-shot LLM configurations, and 14 few-shot LLM configurations -- using SMILES representations on MoleculeNet HIV (41,127 compounds, 3.5% active, 1,000 bootstrap replicates) under both random and scaffold splits. Three findings emerge. First, the simple RF-based Greedy-ML proposer achieves the best DQS (-0.046), outperforming all MLP variants and LLM configurations. Second, no LLM surpasses the Greedy-ML baseline under zero-shot or few-shot evaluation on HIV or Tox21, establishing that LLMs provide no marginal value over an existing trained classifier. Third, the proposer hierarchy generalizes across five MoleculeNet benchmarks spanning 0.18%-46.2% prevalence, a non-drug AV safety domain, and a 9x7 grid of penalty parameters (tau >= 0.636, mean tau = 0.863). The framework applies to any setting where candidates are selected under budget constraints and asymmetric error costs.

Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) is a recently proposed framework for outof-distribution (o.o.d) generalization.

Intrinsic evaluations focus on the inherent properties of the model, while extrinsic evaluations measure biases in the context of specific tasks.

Machine learning models will often fail when deployed in an environment with a data distribution that is different than the training distribution.