We estimate the conditional population-risk curve of a realized smooth nonconvex gradient flow from the training sample. Flow approximate leave-one-out (Flow-ALO) propagates a deletion response and evaluates omitted observations at approximate deleted paths. The risk-curve error decomposes into response approximation, exact-LOO fluctuation, and deletion-to-full risk transfer. On each fixed finite horizon, bounded centered training-loss gradients, a one-sided Hessian lower bound, locally Lipschitz Hessians, and a strict tube-closure condition yield an explicit $(n-1)^{-2}$ bound for the deletion-response error. Bounded evaluation-loss gradients transfer the deletion-response bound to the score without requiring the Hessian to be invertible. Direct first-order jackknife cancellation and exact-LOO concentration control deletion-to-full risk transfer and fluctuation, respectively, completing recovery of the conditional population-risk curve. For bounded smooth two-layer mean-field networks training both layers, the score-error bound is uniform in width.
Language models are compared by their held-out per-token cross-entropy risk---the quantity scaling laws are fitted to. We show that it cannot be consistently estimated. Consistency, or convergence to the estimand, is defined relative to a \emph{possible state of the world}: a pair consisting of a data-generating distribution and a model we turn out to train. Quantifying over models as well as data-generating mechanisms is essential, because what decides whether a model's risk is estimable is a tail property of the distribution its weights induce, which no sample reveals. The per-token cross-entropy risk is hard to estimate because of a topological fact: among the possible states, finite risk and infinite risk each lie arbitrarily close to every instance of the other. Consequently no estimator---not merely the holdout average---is consistent at every state at which the risk is defined. Worse, inconsistent estimation persists under both bounding the expected sequence length and restricting to full-support models; and in that restricted setting the states at which inconsistency occurs are even dense. Two interesting ways out are identified, and neither is free. Way out 1: using a bounded context window, we can floor a model's next-token probabilities, making its risk finite exactly when the data-generating distribution has finite expected sequence length---a new, statistical rationale for a choice that was made on computational grounds, though the assumption it substitutes is itself beyond the reach of any test. Way out 2: reporting the risk only when it falls below a threshold fixed in advance restores consistency, at no cost to what model selection actually requires---but we need to recognize that the goal of estimation is revised.
This paper studies trajectory-wise estimation of generalization error for primal--dual algorithms in non-smooth regression. Motivating examples include \(\ell_1\)-penalized least absolute deviations regression and square-root Lasso regression, where the data-fitting loss is non-differentiable and existing risk estimators for gradient-type optimization paths do not apply directly. We develop a general recursive framework that includes the Chambolle--Pock algorithm and related primal--dual splitting methods. We estimate risk by correcting each in-sample fitted value with a weighted combination of past dual iterates. The ideal weights are Stein derivative contractions and depend on the design covariance. We construct replacement weights from observable derivative contractions of the fitted-signal trajectory, yielding a covariance-free, data-driven correction. For high-dimensional Gaussian designs and fixed finite iteration horizon, we prove finite-sample guarantees for both estimators. For square-root ridge, we further establish a matched-Gaussian universality result beyond Gaussian designs. Numerical experiments show that the proposed estimators accurately track the out-of-sample risk along finite optimization paths.
Active testing provides a label--efficient approach to risk estimation by adaptively selecting which test points should be labelled. However, existing estimators fail to exploit the informative predictions of powerful black--box models, even though such predictions are increasingly available in settings where labels remain expensive. To address this, we propose \textbf{Prediction--Powered Active Testing (PPAT)}, a novel label--efficient risk estimation framework that combines the unbiased LURE estimator \citep{farquhar2021statistical} with a prediction--powered control variate. Rather than using proxy predictions as biased pseudo--labels, PPAT uses them to residualise the loss, preserving unbiasedness while reducing variance. Beyond the estimator itself, PPAT also changes which points should be acquired: we derive oracle and practical surrogate--based acquisition rules tailored to reducing the variance of our estimator. Moreover, we establish asymptotic normality for PPAT, yielding asymptotically valid confidence intervals and thus a principled estimate of the uncertainty around our estimates. Across tabular regression and image--classification tasks, PPAT outperforms existing methods in risk estimation, while its confidence intervals attain the target coverage with substantially fewer labels and smaller widths.
Understanding how a prediction model will perform in a new environment before deployment is essential to preventing harm when algorithms inform decision-making. Two common sources of model performance degradation are (i) covariate shift, where the target covariate distribution differs from the source, and (ii) selective labels, where the observability of outcomes depends on historical decisions. We study pre-deployment model evaluation under the joint presence of covariate shift and labeling of outcomes selectively based on observed features. In particular, we present a double machine learning procedure for estimating the target risk of an arbitrary black-box prediction model under a general loss function. We show identification of this estimand under standard assumptions and derive a bias-corrected estimator based on the influence function of the target risk. Finally, we evaluate our estimator through experiments using the eICU electronic health records database, showing that it tracks the true target risk more accurately than methods that address either selective labels or covariate shift alone, as well as baselines that combine standard plug-in approaches.