Amortized Bayesian inference (ABI) offers fast, scalable approximations to posterior densities by training neural surrogates on data simulated from the statistical model. However, ABI methods are highly sensitive to model misspecification: when observed data fall outside the training distribution (generative scope of the statistical models), neural surrogates can behave unpredictably. This makes it a challenge in a model comparison setting, where multiple statistical models are considered, of which at least some are misspecified. Recent work on self-consistency (SC) provides a promising remedy to this issue, accessible even for empirical data (without ground-truth labels). In this work, we investigate how SC can improve amortized model comparison conceptualized in four different ways. Across two synthetic and two real-world case studies, we find that approaches for model comparison that estimate marginal likelihoods through approximate parameter posteriors consistently outperform methods that directly approximate model evidence or posterior model probabilities. SC training improves robustness when the likelihood is available, even under severe model misspecification. The benefits of SC for methods without access of analytic likelihoods are more limited and inconsistent. Our results suggest practical guidance for reliable amortized Bayesian model comparison: prefer parameter posterior-based methods and augment them with SC training on empirical datasets to mitigate extrapolation bias under model misspecification.

Amortized Bayesian model comparison (BMC) enables fast probabilistic ranking of models via simulation-based training of neural surrogates. However, the reliability of neural surrogates deteriorates when simulation models are misspecified - the very case where model comparison is most needed. Thus, we supplement simulation-based training with a self-consistency (SC) loss on unlabeled real data to improve BMC estimates under empirical distribution shifts. Using a numerical experiment and two case studies with real data, we compare amortized evidence estimates with and without SC against analytic or bridge sampling benchmarks. SC improves calibration under model misspecification when having access to analytic likelihoods. However, it offers limited gains with neural surrogate likelihoods, making it most practical for trustworthy BMC when likelihoods are exact.

Recent findings reveal that over-parameterized deep neural networks, trained beyond zero training-error, exhibit a distinctive structural pattern at the final layer, termed as Neural-collapse (NC). These results indicate that the final hidden-layer outputs in such networks display minimal within-class variations over the training set. While existing research extensively investigates this phenomenon under cross-entropy loss, there are fewer studies focusing on its contrastive counterpart, supervised contrastive (SC) loss. Through the lens of NC, this paper employs an analytical approach to study the solutions derived from optimizing the SC loss. We adopt the unconstrained features model (UFM) as a representative proxy for unveiling NC-related phenomena in sufficiently over-parameterized deep networks. We show that, despite the non-convexity of SC loss minimization, all local minima are global minima. Furthermore, the minimizer is unique (up to a rotation). We prove our results by formalizing a tight convex relaxation of the UFM. Finally, through this convex formulation, we delve deeper into characterizing the properties of global solutions under label-imbalanced training data.