Generative models have achieved remarkable success across numerous applications, showcasing their versatility and effectiveness in domains such as image synthesis, natural language processing, and scientific discovery (Achiam et al. 2023; Goodfellow et al. 2014; Karras et al. 2020; Van Den Oord et al. 2016). While extensive research has focused on developing and refining generative models, comparatively less attention has been given to evaluating these models. Evaluating generative models is essential for quantifying the quality of their outputs and identifying the best model when comparing multiple options. Evaluating a generative model is significantly more challenging than the evaluation of a predictor or a classifier. To evaluate the performance of prediction or classification, we can directly compare the model's output with the true label. In contrast, the quality of a generative model is determined by how closely the distribution of its generated data matches that of the input data, rather than the similarity between generated data points and input data points (also known as the reconstruction error).

This study's first purpose is to provide quantitative evidence that would incentivize researchers to instead use the more robust method of nested cross-validation. The second purpose is to present methods and MATLAB codes for doing power analysis for ML-based analysis during the design of a study. Monte Carlo simulations were used to quantify the interactions between the employed cross-validation method, the discriminative power of features, the dimensionality of the feature space, and the dimensionality of the model. Four different cross-validations (single holdout, 10-fold, train-validation-test, and nested 10-fold) were compared based on the statistical power and statistical confidence of the ML models. Distributions of the null and alternative hypotheses were used to determine the minimum required sample size for obtaining a statistically significant outcome ({\alpha}=0.05, 1-\b{eta}=0.8). Statistical confidence of the model was defined as the probability of correct features being selected and hence being included in the final model. Our analysis showed that the model generated based on the single holdout method had very low statistical power and statistical confidence and that it significantly overestimated the accuracy. Conversely, the nested 10-fold cross-validation resulted in the highest statistical confidence and the highest statistical power, while providing an unbiased estimate of the accuracy. The required sample size with a single holdout could be 50% higher than what would be needed if nested cross-validation were used. Confidence in the model based on nested cross-validation was as much as four times higher than the confidence in the single holdout-based model. A computational model, MATLAB codes, and lookup tables are provided to assist researchers with estimating the sample size during the design of their future studies.

Real-world applications of reinforcement learning for recommendation and experimentation faces a practical challenge: the relative reward of different bandit arms can evolve over the lifetime of the learning agent. To deal with these non-stationary cases, the agent must forget some historical knowledge, as it may no longer be relevant to minimise regret. We present a solution to handling non-stationarity that is suitable for deployment at scale, to provide business operators with automated adaptive optimisation. Our solution aims to provide interpretable learning that can be trusted by humans, whilst responding to non-stationarity to minimise regret. To this end, we develop an adaptive Bayesian learning agent that employs a novel form of dynamic memory. It enables interpretability through statistical hypothesis testing, by targeting a set point of statistical power when comparing rewards and adjusting its memory dynamically to achieve this power. By design, the agent is agnostic to different kinds of non-stationarity. Using numerical simulations, we compare its performance against an existing proposal and show that, under multiple non-stationary scenarios, our agent correctly adapts to real changes in the true rewards. In all bandit solutions, there is an explicit trade-off between learning and achieving maximal performance. Our solution sits on a different point on this trade-off when compared to another similarly robust approach: we prioritise interpretability, which relies on more learning, at the cost of some regret. We describe the architecture of a large-scale deployment of automatic optimisation-as-a-service where our agent achieves interpretability whilst adapting to changing circumstances.