Multi-arm bandit experimental designs are increasingly being adopted over standard randomized trials due to their potential to improve outcomes for study participants, enable faster identification of the best-performing options, and/or enhance the precision of estimating key parameters. Current approaches for inference after adaptive sampling either rely on asymptotic normality under restricted experiment designs or underpowered martingale concentration inequalities that lead to weak power in practice. To bypass these limitations, we propose a simulation-based approach for conducting hypothesis tests and constructing confidence intervals for arm specific means and their differences. Our simulation-based approach uses positively biased nuisances to generate additional trajectories of the experiment, which we call simulation with optimism. Using these simulations, we characterize the distribution potentially non-normal sample mean test statistic to conduct inference. We provide guarantees for (i) asymptotic type I error control, (ii) convergence of our confidence intervals, and (iii) asymptotic strong consistency of our estimator over a wide variety of common bandit designs. Our empirical results show that our approach achieves the desired coverage while reducing confidence interval widths by up to 50%, with drastic improvements for arms not targeted by the design.

This position paper argues that post-deployment monitoring in clinical AI is underdeveloped and proposes statistically valid and label-efficient testing frameworks as a principled foundation for ensuring reliability and safety in real-world deployment. A recent review found that only 9% of FDA-registered AI-based healthcare tools include a post-deployment surveillance plan [1]. Existing monitoring approaches are often manual, sporadic, and reactive, making them ill-suited for the dynamic environments in which clinical models operate. We contend that post-deployment monitoring should be grounded in label-efficient and statistically valid testing frameworks, offering a principled alternative to current practices. We use the term "statistically valid" to refer to methods that provide explicit guarantees on error rates (e.g., Type I/II error), enable formal inference under pre-defined assumptions, and support reproducibility--features that align with regulatory requirements. Specifically, we propose that the detection of changes in the data and model performance degradation should be framed as distinct statistical hypothesis testing problems. Grounding monitoring in statistical rigor ensures a reproducible and scientifically sound basis for maintaining the reliability of clinical AI systems. Importantly, it also opens new research directions for the technical community--spanning theory, methods, and tools for statistically principled detection, attribution, and mitigation of post-deployment model failures in real-world settings.

Purpose: Task-based assessment of image quality (IQ) is critically important for the design and optimization of medical imaging systems. Ideal observers, including the Bayesian Ideal Observer (IO) and the ideal linear observer, i.e., the Hotelling observer (HO), provide objective figures of merit (FOMs) that quantify system performance on signal detection tasks. However, the application of ideal observers to high-dimensional image data is often computationally intractable. Channel mechanisms provide an effective framework for dimensionality reduction that can facilitate the computation of ideal observers. This work presents a conjugate gradient (CG)-based method to construct efficient channels for approximating the IO and HO performance.

The validity of statistical inference depends critically on how data are collected. When data gathered through active data collection (ADC) are reused for a post-hoc inferential task, conventional inference can fail because the sampling is adaptively biased toward regions favored by the collection strategy. This issue is especially pronounced in black-box optimization, where sequential model-based optimization (SMBO) methods such as the tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE) and Gaussian process upper confidence bound (GP-UCB) preferentially concentrate evaluations in promising regions. We study statistical inference on actively collected data when the inferential target is constructed in a data-dependent manner after data collection. To enable valid inference in this setting, we propose post-ADC inference, a framework that accounts for the biases arising from both the active data collection process and the subsequent data-driven target construction. Our method builds on selective inference and provides valid $p$-values and confidence intervals that correct for both sources of bias. The framework applies to a broad class of ADC processes by imposing only assumptions on the observation noise, without requiring any assumptions on the underlying black-box function or the surrogate model used by the SMBO algorithm. Empirical results also show that post-ADC inference provides valid inference for data collected by GP-UCB and TPE.

We consider the problem of two-sample testing in a semi-supervised setting with abundant unlabeled covariate data. Standard two-sample tests neglect covariate information, which has the potential to significantly boost performance. However, incorporating covariates potentially breaks the exchangeability assumption under the null, which further complicates a calibration procedure. To address these issues, we propose a semi-supervised method that produces a test statistic with asymptotic normality, while effectively integrating additional information from covariates. Our test is straightforward to calibrate due to the asymptotic normality under the null and achieves asymptotic power that is often much higher than existing kernel tests without covariates. Furthermore, we formally show that the proposed method is consistent in power against fixed and local alternatives. Simulations confirm the practical and theoretical strengths of our approach.

The widespread use of black box prediction methods has sparked an increasing interest in algorithm/model-agnostic approaches for quantifying goodness-of-fit, with direct ties to specification testing, model selection and variable importance assessment. A commonly used framework involves defining a predictiveness criterion, applying a cross-fitting procedure to estimate the predictiveness, and utilizing the difference in estimated predictiveness between two models as the test statistic. However, even after standardization, the test statistic typically fails to converge to a non-degenerate distribution under the null hypothesis of equal goodness, leading to what is known as the degeneracy issue. To addresses this degeneracy issue, we present a simple yet effective device, Zipper. It draws inspiration from the strategy of additional splitting of testing data, but encourages an overlap between two testing data splits in predictiveness evaluation. Zipper binds together the two overlapping splits using a slider parameter that controls the proportion of overlap. Our proposed test statistic follows an asymptotically normal distribution under the null hypothesis for any fixed slider value, guaranteeing valid size control while enhancing power by effective data reuse. Finite-sample experiments demonstrate that our procedure, with a simple choice of the slider, works well across a wide range of settings.

The Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC) is a powerful kernel-based statistic for assessing the generalized dependence between two multivariate variables. However, independence testing based on the HSIC is not directly possible for cluster-correlated data. Such a correlation pattern among the observations arises in many practical situations, e.g., family-based and longitudinal data, and requires proper accommodation. Therefore, we propose a novel HSIC-based independence test to evaluate the dependence between two multivariate variables based on clustercorrelated data. Using the previously proposed empirical HSIC as our test statistic, we derive its asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis of independence between the two variables but in the presence of sample correlation. Based on both simulation studies and real data analysis, we show that, with clustered data, our approach effectively controls type I error and has a higher statistical power than competing methods.

Membership inference attacks are designed to determine, using black box access to trained models, whether a particular example was used in training or not. Membership inference can be formalized as a hypothesis testing problem. The most effective existing attacks estimate the distribution of some test statistic (usually the model's confidence on the true label) on points that were (and were not) used in training by training many shadow models--i.e.