Stabilized Higher-Order Influence Functions: Statistical Theory of a Class of Bilinear Forms

Higher-order influence functions, introduced in a series of articles (Robins et al., 2008, 2009a; van der Vaart, 2014; Robins et al., 2016, 2023; Liu et al., 2017), are a unified framework for constructing rate-optimal point estimates of a class of statistical functionals, under various complexity-reducing assumptions on the posited statistical model that generates the observed data. Although higher-order (influence functions) estimators are theoretically appealing, they have very limited practical uptake compared to their first-order counterparts. The original higher-order estimators proposed in Robins et al. (2008) and Robins et al. (2017) involve nonparametric density estimation of multi-dimensional covariates, a highly nontrivial statistical and computational problem on its own. The density estimator is, in turn, used in the evaluation of the inverse population Gram matrix $Ω$ of a set of $k$-dimensional basis transformations of covariates. There, $k$ is allowed to be as large as $o (n^2)$. To partially address this potential shortcoming, Liu et al. (2017) restrict $k$ to $o (n)$ and instead estimate $Ω$ directly using the inverse sample Gram matrix estimator, but computed from an independent sample often obtained by sample-splitting. Liu et al. (2017) refer to this alternative estimator as the empirical higher-order estimator. Although the empirical higher-order estimator bypasses density estimation, it suffers from numerical instability due to potentially inverting a large-dimensional sample Gram matrix. In this article, we propose a new stabilized higher-order estimator without sample splitting, which exhibits more stable finite-sample performance compared to the empirical higher-order estimator, and more importantly, we prove that this new class of higher-order estimators enjoys similar statistical guarantees.

Using Large Language Models as Low-Cost Statistical Estimators for Human-Response Data

Quantitative research across the social and behavioral sciences depends on human subject experiments that are expensive, slow, and subject to sampling bias. Here we show that pretrained large language models induce risk-equivalent estimators of conditional expectations under squared loss, establishing restricted functional risk equivalence: under squared loss, the LLM induces an estimator whose risk matches the Bayes optimal risk for squared-loss prediction of conditional expectations for any inference that depends on the data only through the conditional mean. We formalize the LLM as a misspecified functional estimator $T(\hat{P}_n)$ trained on i.i.d.\ data, decompose the estimation error into representation bias $ε_{\mathrm{rep}}$ and optimization error, and prove that under mild regularity conditions the LLM's expected error converges to the irreducible population variance plus the squared representation bias, with the representation bias bounded by the Pinsker inequality. The identifiability error $δ$ propagates into the effective bias, inflating the asymptotic risk floor. We establish restricted functional risk equivalence via a bidirectional Le Cam deficiency analysis: the forward deficiency vanishes asymptotically while the reverse deficiency is exactly zero. We provide finite-sample concentration bounds and a calibration protocol with explicit decision rules. The result is a precise, provable statement: a well-calibrated LLM achieves the Bayes-optimal risk for conditional-mean-dependent inference, bounded by explicit scope conditions. In practical applications, this means that under satisfied conditions and well-calibrated models, large language models can be used in many prediction and decision-making tasks that originally relied on human experiments, approximating near-optimal statistical inference at lower cost.

When Surveys Become Conversations: Adaptive Matrix Validation for AI-Assisted Interviews

AI-assisted interviews promise to reduce respondent burden in surveys by allowing respondents to describe experiences naturally while an AI system noisily maps those accounts into structured survey variables. That mapping is a measurement process that is fallible, versioned, adaptive, and potentially behaves differently across subgroups. This paper proposes Adaptive Matrix Validation (AMV), a design in which each respondent completes an AI-assisted interview, which is then mapped into tabular data by the AI. Respondents are also asked a small, randomized set of structured questions, which are used for statistical adjustment. The estimator first calibrates the mapped values using validation answers from other respondents, then corrects the remaining error with the validation answers observed for the target respondent. The paper develops estimators for item means, subgroup estimates, and regression coefficients when outcomes, predictors, or both are mapped from interviews. It also gives planning formulas the number of validation questions required and the sample size. A design-calibration simulation, an American Time Use Survey emulation, and a CHAMPS verbal-autopsy narrative study show when sparse validation can improve precision and when it cannot