Qiyao Wei

Alihan Hüyük, Qiyao Wei, Alicia Curth et al.

Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and "expertise" is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.

Paulius Rauba, Qiyao Wei, Mihaela van der Schaar

We consider the problem of quantifying how an input perturbation impacts the outputs of large language models (LLMs), a fundamental task for model reliability and post-hoc interpretability. A key obstacle in this domain is disentangling the meaningful changes in model responses from the intrinsic stochasticity of LLM outputs. To overcome this, we introduce Distribution-Based Perturbation Analysis (DBPA), a framework that reformulates LLM perturbation analysis as a frequentist hypothesis testing problem. DBPA constructs empirical null and alternative output distributions within a low-dimensional semantic similarity space via Monte Carlo sampling. Comparisons of Monte Carlo estimates in the reduced dimensionality space enables tractable frequentist inference without relying on restrictive distributional assumptions. The framework is model-agnostic, supports the evaluation of arbitrary input perturbations on any black-box LLM, yields interpretable p-values, supports multiple perturbation testing via controlled error rates, and provides scalar effect sizes for any chosen similarity or distance metric. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DBPA in evaluating perturbation impacts, showing its versatility for perturbation analysis.

Paulius Rauba, Qiyao Wei, Mihaela van der Schaar

Consider the problem of testing whether the outputs of a large language model (LLM) system change under an arbitrary intervention, such as an input perturbation or changing the model variant. We cannot simply compare two LLM outputs since they might differ due to the stochastic nature of the system, nor can we compare the entire output distribution due to computational intractability. While existing methods for analyzing text-based outputs exist, they focus on fundamentally different problems, such as measuring bias or fairness. To this end, we introduce distribution-based perturbation analysis, a framework that reformulates LLM perturbation analysis as a frequentist hypothesis testing problem. We construct empirical null and alternative output distributions within a low-dimensional semantic similarity space via Monte Carlo sampling, enabling tractable inference without restrictive distributional assumptions. The framework is (i) model-agnostic, (ii) supports the evaluation of arbitrary input perturbations on any black-box LLM, (iii) yields interpretable p-values; (iv) supports multiple perturbations via controlled error rates; and (v) provides scalar effect sizes. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework across multiple case studies, showing how we can quantify response changes, measure true/false positive rates, and evaluate alignment with reference models. Above all, we see this as a reliable frequentist hypothesis testing framework for LLM auditing.