Resolution-Aware Experimental Design under Partial Identifiability

Experimental design is commonly framed as choosing the experiment expected to provide the most information. Under partial identifiability however, persistent nuisance uncertainty can make the same observation carry different structural meanings. We introduce Resolution-Aware Experimental Design (RAED), which selects an experiment by the smallest expected nonempty structural candidate set achievable subject to false-exclusion control. We prove an exact cross-nuisance aliasing separation: an experiment can be preferred by structural and full-latent information gain, average classification, and nuisance-marginalized informativeness while having arbitrarily poorer valid structural resolution. RAED nevertheless preserves the expected ordering under a genuine composite Blackwell comparison. To make this criterion operational, we develop a learned score-based implementation with finite-sample nuisance-average and positive-tail calibration, and characterize a rare-tail sample-complexity obstruction. Under constrained sensing, two subsurface-flow benchmarks exhibit genuine RAED--expected-information-gain (EIG) experiment-selection disagreements, with the clearest and largest held-out resolution differences in WCA. In a fluvial benchmark, tail protection changes the selected physical experiment and replaces hard-region false exclusions primarily with explicit ambiguity. In a mechanistic methane-oxidation benchmark, a prospectively specified 5\% false-exclusion tolerance also yields a nontrivial finite-sample population guarantee for tail-sensitive nuisance risk, with 95\% joint confidence across all three structural families.

Data Mixing as Mixture Experiment: Response Surface Methodology and Optimal Design for Large Language Model Pretraining

Data mixing is a central design problem in large language model pretraining: given a fixed token budget, practitioners must decide how much data to allocate to each domain. Recent proxy-based methods address this problem by training small models on candidate mixtures, fitting a response model, and using the response to select mixtures for larger-scale training. We show that this workflow has the structure of a classical mixture experiment. Under this view, data domains are mixture components, token shares are component proportions, proxy-training runs are experimental design points, and validation loss defines a response surface over the probability simplex. We develop this formulation using sparse second-order Scheffé response-surface models and construct model-robust $\mathcal{I}$-optimal designs for proxy data-mixing experiments. Using RegMix as an empirical case study, we demonstrate how the framework can both interpret observed mixture responses and design more efficient proxy experiments. The Scheffé analysis shows that domain value is strongly relational: several domains that are weak under additive effects become favourable through pairwise interactions, especially through combinations with web-derived text. The sparse Scheffé model preserves mixture rankings across model scales and remains competitive with a flexible machine-learning predictor while providing an explicit decomposition of additive and interaction effects. In a simulation study calibrated to observed proxy-training responses, model-robust $\mathcal{I}$-optimal designs recover the relevant mixture ordering after removing about 25\% of the original proxy runs. These results suggest that LLM data mixing should be treated not only as a prediction problem, but also as an experimental-design problem in which the proxy mixtures themselves can be chosen to improve statistical efficiency.

Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation: Experimental Design for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Population Shift

Randomized experiments are often run in one population to guide decisions in another. Allocating by experimental proportions wastes budget on groups that rarely appear in deployment, whereas allocating by deployment proportions under-samples groups that are hard to measure precisely. We propose \textbf{TWNA} (Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation), a two-stage stratified design that uses pilot estimates of group--arm outcome variances to allocate final-stage sample sizes and treatment probabilities for target-weighted group average treatment effect (GATE) precision. The oracle rule has a closed form and balances deployment importance with statistical difficulty; the plug-in rule recovers it as pilot variance estimates stabilize. We also extend TWNA to handle uncertainty about deployment composition, remaining robust whether the target mix is roughly known or entirely unknown. Finally, we distinguish this weight robustness from a pilot-robust variant for skewed, rare-event, or contaminated outcomes. Simulations and real-covariate benchmarks show the largest gains when groups are both deployment-important and difficult to measure.

Adversarial Causal Intervention Falsification

Generative models can reproduce an observational distribution while encoding an incorrect causal structure. We study a sequential game in which a structural causal generator proposes observational and interventional distributions, while an adversarial experimentalist selects interventions intended to maximally falsify the generator. The discriminator is therefore not merely a real-versus-synthetic classifier: it is indexed by an intervention and tests whether the generator reproduces the corresponding post-intervention law. We introduce Adversarial Causal Intervention Falsification (ACIF), formulate oracle and implementable versions of the game, and distinguish three objects that are often conflated: observational fit, interventional equivalence over an admissible query class, and point identification of a structural causal model. For finite model and intervention classes, we prove: (i) an exact reduction of the adversarial objective to a worst-intervention integral probability metric; (ii) identification up to interventional equivalence, with point identification under a separating intervention family; (iii) existence of mixed-strategy equilibria; (iv) finite-sample uniform convergence and margin-based model-selection guarantees; and (v) a logarithmic elimination guarantee for a disagreement-driven sequential design under a balanced-separation condition. We also give a complete linear-Gaussian example in which two observationally indistinguishable causal directions are separated by a single well-chosen intervention. The framework clarifies what an adversarial causal discriminator can and cannot certify, and provides a principled bridge between causal generative modeling, active causal discovery, and experimental design.

Identifying Informative Environments for Cognition Parameter Inference via Bayesian Experimental Design

Computational cognitive modeling seeks to infer latent cognitive mechanisms underlying observed behavior. Bayesian inverse planning provides a principled framework for such inference, but its success depends critically on the experimental environment. Existing approaches typically treat environments as fixed, leaving open the question of which cognitive experiments are most informative for cognition parameter inference. We formulate the design of cognitive planning experiments as a Bayesian Experimental Design (BED) problem, treating the experimental environment as the design variable. We establish an exact Monte Carlo BED benchmark and introduce an amortized Bayesian experimental design framework for efficient posterior inference and design evaluation. Experiments on the Mouselab-MDP process-tracing paradigm show that amortized BED closely matches the environment rankings of exact Monte Carlo BED while substantially reducing computational cost. We further show that no single environment is uniformly optimal across cognitive inference objectives, revealing trade-offs between expected information gain, posterior recoverability, and information efficiency. These results provide a principled framework for designing informative cognitive experiments for Bayesian parameter inference.

Retrospective Orthogonal Design: Response-Surface Reconstruction from Observational Data

Regression estimates from observational data can depend on specification under multicollinearity, while sequential sums of squares (SS) depend on term order. We introduce Retrospective Orthogonal Design (ROD), which reconstructs conditional mean surfaces on a probability-balanced lattice. ROD preserves observed cell means, completes unsupported cells, applies weighted tensor-product contrasts, and evaluates the reconstructed surface through piecewise-affine interpolation over Freudenthal polyhedra. Resolution and completion are selected jointly by validation among rank-admissible candidates, followed by refitting and evaluation on an untouched test set. For an admissible lattice, $\mathbf{X}^{\top}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{X}=c\mathbf{I}$, yielding specification-invariant contrast effects and unique, order-independent SS within the retained contrast space. Response-free projection calibration maps the fixed reconstruction onto a declared scientific basis and corrects finite-resolution recovery loss. Across 6,480 simulation conditions spanning nine data-generating processes, ROD matched or exceeded polynomial regression in five processes and performed strongest on threshold, sign-interaction, and localized surfaces. For the quadratic-interaction process, mean out-of-sample $R^2$ differed by only $0.0001$, while calibrated coefficient bias remained small across prespecified targets. A Rao-based information adjustment provides dependence-aware sample-size guidance for ROD planning. In a weighted Mincer application, ROD produced the highest out-of-sample $R^2$ point estimate, with substantial interval overlap with polynomial regression, and provided exhaustive SS allocations invariant to term-entry order.

Robust Bayesian Decision Making under Adversarial Uncertainty

Scientific experiments are often designed to maximize information gain, yet in many applications the primary objective is to support reliable downstream decision-making. Existing decision-aware experimental design and active learning methods typically assume well-specified outcome models and implicitly rely on the stability of the optimal decision under real-world perturbations. In practice, however, experimental outcomes are frequently influenced by hidden or weakly modeled effects, which can substantially alter decision optimality and lead to misleading conclusions. We study sequential adversarially robust decision-aware experimental design, where data acquisition has to take into account information gain against plausible worst-case unexpected effects, modeled here as variation in adversarial variables. Building on Bayesian decision theory, we formalize an adversarially robust optimal decision under this setting and derive a principled Bayesian experimental design criterion. The criterion explicitly targets decision stability rather than nominal optimality. Experiments on synthetic and real-world scientific datasets show that conventional decision-aware design can converge rapidly to high confidence yet fragile decisions, while our robustness-aware approach yields decisions that are significantly more stable and reliable under adversarial variation.

Robust Active Learning for Few-Shot Example Selection in Text-to-SQL

Few-shot example retrieval is the dominant paradigm for grounding large language models (LLMs) in domain-specific text-to-SQL systems. However, the quality of the annotated example bank directly governs system accuracy, and expert annotation is prohibitively expensive. We formalize the active selection of these examples as a constrained experimental design problem over the intrinsic, low-dimensional manifold of semantic query embeddings. Unlike standard active learning frameworks, our setting introduces three critical challenges: varying, query-dependent annotation reliability (heteroscedasticity), strict requirements for spatial diversity across semantic topics (partition matroid constraints), and the inherent reality that the true covariance structure of the embedding space is unknown (misspecification). To address these, we propose a stratified greedy algorithm that maximizes a heteroscedastic mutual information objective. We prove that this objective remains submodular and approximately monotonic on the intrinsic manifold, yielding a theoretical constant-factor approximation guarantee. We establish a spectral bound demonstrating that this approximation guarantee degrades gracefully, rather than catastrophically, when the assumed surrogate kernel diverges from the true underlying data-generating process. Empirical results demonstrate that the proposed strategy significantly reduces labeling effort while maintaining high text-to-SQL retrieval accuracy.

Validity Threats for Foundation Model Research

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.