arxiv: 2605.06484 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 📊 stat.ME · cs.LG· stat.ML

Recognition: unknown

Estimate Level Adjustment For Inference With Proxies Under Random Distribution Shifts

Alexandra N. M. Darmon, Deeksha Sinha, Steven Wilkins-Reeves

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 07:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ME cs.LGstat.ML

keywords proxy inferencedistribution shiftrandom effectsdomain adaptationcalibrationstatistical inferencemethod of momentsbootstrap

0 comments

The pith

Proxy-based inferences are calibrated by modeling discrepancies with primary outcomes as random effects estimated from historical domains.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

In many fields researchers use easier-to-measure proxy outcomes for inference when the primary outcome is costly or slow to observe, yet distribution shifts often make the proxies imperfect. Standard corrections rely on assumptions such as surrogacy or covariate shift that are hard to verify and frequently violated. The paper offers an estimate-level approach that treats the gap between a proxy-derived estimate and the primary parameter as a random effect whose distribution is learned from aggregated data across earlier domains. This adjustment works without retaining individual-level records and can be stacked on top of existing correction techniques. The result is improved calibration of point estimates and uncertainty when shifts are random and historical domains supply representative information.

Core claim

We introduce an estimate-level framework to empirically calibrate proxy-based inference by modeling the proxy-primary metric discrepancy as a random effect at the parameter level. Its distribution is estimated from aggregated historical observations across past domains such as experiments, time periods, or segments. The method requires no retention of individual-level response data and can be layered onto existing proxy-correction procedures to handle residual biases. Both a method-of-moments estimator and a domain bootstrap are supplied to handle limited numbers of historical domains.

What carries the argument

The estimate-level random-effect model for proxy-primary discrepancy, fitted to aggregated historical domain observations.

If this is right

The adjustment can be applied on top of prediction-powered inference or importance weighting to capture biases those methods leave unaddressed.
Only aggregate estimates from past domains are needed, so individual data need not be stored or re-accessed.
Method-of-moments and domain-bootstrap estimators provide practical ways to quantify uncertainty when few historical domains are available.
The framework applies directly to experimentation, time-series, and segmented data settings where proxies are common.
Validation on public datasets and real-world experiments supports its use under random distribution shifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach resembles empirical-Bayes shrinkage across domains and could be extended to settings where the random-effect variance itself varies with observable domain features.
If the random-effect assumption holds, retaining only summary statistics from past experiments becomes sufficient for ongoing calibration, reducing data-storage requirements.
Practitioners could test the method by withholding the most recent domain and checking whether the adjustment improves inference on that held-out case.
The same logic might apply to other meta-analytic problems in which historical parameter estimates inform current uncertainty quantification.

Load-bearing premise

The discrepancies between proxy and primary outcomes behave as random effects whose distribution can be reliably estimated from a limited number of historical domains and that these historical observations are representative of the current shift.

What would settle it

A new domain in which the adjusted estimates show no reduction in bias or no improvement in coverage of the primary parameter relative to the unadjusted proxy estimates, or in which the fitted random-effect distribution systematically fails to match the observed discrepancies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06484 by Alexandra N. M. Darmon, Deeksha Sinha, Steven Wilkins-Reeves.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Average confidence-interval length versus within view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Empirical coverage of baseline and adjusted proxy view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Civil Comments: publication-level prevalence esti view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Long term experiments: empirical interval over view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In many scientific domains, including experimentation, researchers rely on measurements of proxy outcomes to achieve faster and more frequent reads, especially when the primary outcome of interest is challenging to measure directly. While proxies offer a more readily accessible observation for inference, the ultimate goal is to draw statistical inferences about the primary outcome parameter and proxy data are typically imperfect in some ways. To correct for these imperfections, current statistical inference methods often depend on strict identifying assumptions (such as surrogacy, covariate/label shift, or missingness assumptions). These assumptions can be difficult to validate and may be violated by various additional sources of distribution shift, potentially leading to biased parameter estimates and miscalibrated uncertainty quantification. We introduce an estimate-level framework, inspired by domain adaptation techniques, to empirically calibrate proxy-based inference. This framework models the proxy-primary metric discrepancy as a random effect at the parameter level, estimating its distribution from aggregated historical observations across past domains (e.g., experiments, time periods, or distinct segments). This method avoids the requirement for retaining individual-level response data. Additionally, this adjustment can be layered on top of existing proxy-correction methods (such as prediction-powered inference or importance weighting) to account for additional biases not addressed by those corrections. To manage uncertainty when the number of historical domains is limited, we provide both a method-of-moments estimator and a domain bootstrap procedure. We further validate this approach using publicly available datasets and real-world experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Proxy calibration via random effects from historical domains is practical but needs the shifts to be exchangeable.

read the letter

Here's the quick take on this paper: it proposes calibrating proxy inferences by treating the proxy-to-primary discrepancy as a random effect whose variance and distribution come from past experiments or domains. This lets you adjust your current estimate and uncertainty without strong new assumptions or keeping all the individual data. What they do well is make the adjustment work at the estimate level using aggregated historical observations. That avoids privacy or storage problems that come with keeping raw responses. They also show how to combine it with existing proxy corrections like importance weighting or prediction-powered inference, which is useful for incremental improvement. For the uncertainty part when you have only a few historical domains, they give a method-of-moments estimator and a domain bootstrap procedure. That's thoughtful. They back it up with checks on public datasets and real experiments, which moves it past pure simulation. The main concern is whether the historical domains really represent the current shift. The random effect model assumes the discrepancy in the new domain is drawn from the same distribution estimated from history. If there's a systematic component like a changing population or new factors, the estimated adjustment could be biased and the intervals could be too narrow or too wide. The abstract mentions handling limited domains but doesn't detail sensitivity to non-exchangeable shifts. Without the full derivations, it's hard to see exactly how the estimators are derived, but the overall setup looks internally consistent. This paper would interest people who run experiments or observational studies and use proxies for quicker reads. Anyone who already has a collection of past studies or time periods could apply this directly. A reader focused on practical statistical tools rather than theoretical guarantees would get the most out of it. It deserves a serious referee. The idea is clear, the practical constraints are addressed, and the empirical validation is there. I would recommend sending it for peer review, expecting some discussion around the exchangeability assumption and perhaps requests for more simulation studies on misspecification.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an estimate-level framework for calibrating statistical inference when using proxy outcomes under random distribution shifts. It models the discrepancy between proxy-based and primary metric estimates as a random effect at the parameter level, with the distribution of this effect estimated from aggregated historical observations across past domains (e.g., experiments or time periods). The method avoids retaining individual-level data, can be layered atop existing proxy corrections such as prediction-powered inference or importance weighting, and supplies a method-of-moments estimator together with a domain bootstrap procedure to handle uncertainty when the number of historical domains is small. Validation is reported on publicly available datasets and real-world experiments.

Significance. If the exchangeability assumption holds, the work supplies a practical, data-retention-friendly route to improve uncertainty calibration for proxy-based inference in the presence of additional unmodeled shifts. The layering property and the provision of two limited-domain estimators constitute concrete strengths that could be useful in experimentation and observational settings where strict identifying assumptions are hard to verify.

major comments (3)

[Framework description (modeling the discrepancy as random effect)] The framework treats the current-domain proxy-primary discrepancy as exchangeable with the distribution estimated from historical domains. No formal conditions for this exchangeability, nor sensitivity analyses against systematic violations (time trends, new covariates, or selection effects), are supplied; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim of calibrated intervals after adjustment.
[Uncertainty quantification section] The domain bootstrap procedure is offered for limited historical domains, yet the manuscript does not detail how the bootstrap is constructed from aggregated estimates alone (without individual-level responses) or how it propagates uncertainty in the estimated random-effect variance.
[Validation / Experiments] Validation on public datasets and real-world experiments does not include targeted checks (e.g., simulated non-exchangeable shifts) that would demonstrate whether the adjusted intervals remain calibrated when the current shift deviates from the historical distribution.

minor comments (3)

[Title] The title would read more clearly as 'Estimate-Level Adjustment for Inference with Proxies under Random Distribution Shifts'.
[Abstract] The abstract introduces the 'estimate-level framework' without a one-sentence definition; a brief gloss would aid readers.
[Introduction] A short discussion of how the proposed random-effect adjustment relates to existing meta-analytic or domain-adaptation random-effect models would help situate the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the framework's practical advantages, including its layering property and data-retention-friendly design. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments, outlining the revisions we will make to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The framework treats the current-domain proxy-primary discrepancy as exchangeable with the distribution estimated from historical domains. No formal conditions for this exchangeability, nor sensitivity analyses against systematic violations (time trends, new covariates, or selection effects), are supplied; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim of calibrated intervals after adjustment.

Authors: We agree that the exchangeability assumption is central to the method. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection in the Methods that formally defines the assumption: the target-domain discrepancy is modeled as exchangeable with the historical discrepancies under a common meta-distribution of random shifts. We will also expand the Experiments section with sensitivity analyses that introduce systematic violations (linear time trends in the discrepancy, new unobserved covariates, and selection effects) and report the resulting coverage of the adjusted intervals to illustrate robustness and limitations. revision: yes
Referee: The domain bootstrap procedure is offered for limited historical domains, yet the manuscript does not detail how the bootstrap is constructed from aggregated estimates alone (without individual-level responses) or how it propagates uncertainty in the estimated random-effect variance.

Authors: The domain bootstrap operates exclusively on the historical domain-level parameter estimates (the aggregated summaries) by resampling these domain-level discrepancies with replacement; the random-effect variance is then re-estimated in each replicate to propagate its uncertainty. We will insert a detailed algorithmic description together with pseudocode into the Uncertainty Quantification section to make this construction explicit and to confirm that no individual-level data are required. revision: yes
Referee: Validation on public datasets and real-world experiments does not include targeted checks (e.g., simulated non-exchangeable shifts) that would demonstrate whether the adjusted intervals remain calibrated when the current shift deviates from the historical distribution.

Authors: We concur that such targeted checks would strengthen the validation. In the revision we will add a new simulation study in which the current-domain shift is deliberately made non-exchangeable (e.g., by superimposing a systematic trend or covariate shift absent from the historical domains) and will report the empirical coverage probabilities of the adjusted intervals under these controlled violations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central construction estimates the distribution of proxy-primary discrepancies as a random effect from aggregated historical domain observations and applies this to calibrate inference in a new domain. This relies on an external data source (historical domains) rather than deriving the adjustment from the current estimates alone. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain; the framework is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work in a circular manner.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger inferred from abstract only. The central modeling step treats the discrepancy as a random effect whose distribution is learned from history; no explicit free parameters or new entities are named.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Proxy-primary discrepancies can be modeled as random effects whose distribution is estimable from aggregated historical observations across domains.
This is the core modeling premise stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1140 out tokens · 55950 ms · 2026-05-08T07:25:04.682100+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Isaiah Andrews, Toru Kitagawa, and Adam McCloskey. 2024. Inference on winners.The Quarterly Journal of Economics139, 1 (2024), 305–358

2024
[2]

Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Clara Fannjiang, Michael I Jordan, and Tijana Zrnic. 2023. Prediction-powered inference.Science382, 6671 (2023), 669–674

2023
[3]

Anastasios N Angelopoulos, John C Duchi, and Tijana Zrnic. 2023. PPI++: Efficient prediction-powered inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01453(2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[4]

2019.The surrogate index: Combining short-term proxies to estimate long-term treatment effects more rapidly and precisely

Susan Athey, Raj Chetty, Guido W Imbens, and Hyunseung Kang. 2019.The surrogate index: Combining short-term proxies to estimate long-term treatment effects more rapidly and precisely. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

2019
[5]

Meshi Bashari, Roy Maor Lotan, Yonghoon Lee, Edgar Dobriban, and Yaniv Romano. 2025. Synthetic-Powered Predictive Inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13432(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Aurélien Bibaut, Winston Chou, Simon Ejdemyr, and Nathan Kallus. 2024. Learn- ing the covariance of treatment effects across many weak experiments. InPro- ceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 153–162

2024
[7]

Daniel Borkan, Lucas Dixon, Jeffrey Sorensen, Nithum Thain, and Lucy Vasser- man. 2019. Nuanced metrics for measuring unintended bias with real data for text classification. InCompanion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference

2019
[8]

Marc Buyse, Geert Molenberghs, Tomasz Burzykowski, Didier Renard, and He- lena Geys. 2000. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments.Biostatistics1, 1 (2000), 49–67

2000
[9]

Yee Seng Chan and Hwee Tou Ng. 2005. Word Sense Disambiguation with Distribution Estimation.. InIJCAI, Vol. 5. 1010–5

2005
[10]

Xingran Chen, Tyler McCormick, Bhramar Mukherjee, and Zhenke Wu. 2025. A Unified Framework for Inference with General Missingness Patterns and Machine Learning Imputation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15162(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

Rebecca DerSimonian and Nan Laird. 1986. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials7, 3 (1986), 177–188

1986
[12]

Bradley Efron, Robert Tibshirani, John D Storey, and Virginia Tusher. 2001. Empirical Bayes analysis of a microarray experiment.Journal of the American statistical association96, 456 (2001), 1151–1160

2001
[13]

Simon Ejdemyr, Martin Tingley, Yian Shang, and Travis Brooks. 2024. Estimating the returns from an experimentation program. InACIC Conference

2024
[14]

Somit Gupta, Ronny Kohavi, Diane Tang, Ya Xu, Reid Andersen, Eytan Bakshy, Niall Cardin, Sumita Chandran, Nanyu Chen, Dominic Coey, et al . 2019. Top challenges from the first practical online controlled experiments summit.ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter21, 1 (2019), 20–35

2019
[15]

Ursula Hébert-Johnson, Michael Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy Rothblum. 2018. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1939–1948

2018
[16]

James J Heckman, Jora Stixrud, and Sergio Urzua. 2006. The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior.Journal of Labor economics24, 3 (2006), 411–482

2006
[17]

Nikos Ignatiadis and Bodhisattva Sen. 2024. Empirical Bayes: From Herbert Robbins to Modern Theory and Applications. (2024). https://nignatiadis.github. io/assets/lecture_notes/Empirical-Bayes.pdf Lecture Notes

2024
[18]

Nikolaos Ignatiadis and Stefan Wager. 2022. Confidence intervals for nonparamet- ric empirical Bayes analysis.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.117, 539 (2022), 1149–1166

2022
[19]

Wenlong Ji, Lihua Lei, and Tijana Zrnic. 2025. Predictions as surrogates: Revisiting surrogate outcomes in the age of ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09731(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Michael P Kim, Amirata Ghorbani, and James Zou. 2019. Multiaccuracy: Black-box post-processing for fairness in classification. InProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 247–254

2019
[21]

Michael P Kim, Christoph Kern, Shafi Goldwasser, Frauke Kreuter, and Omer Reingold. 2022. Universal adaptability: Target-independent inference that com- petes with propensity scoring.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 4 (2022), e2108097119

2022
[22]

Dan M Kluger, Kerri Lu, Tijana Zrnic, Sherrie Wang, and Stephen Bates. 2025. Prediction-powered inference with imputed covariates and nonuniform sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18577(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubramani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, et al. 2021. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 5637–5664

2021
[24]

Minyong R Lee and Milan Shen. 2018. Winner’s curse: Bias estimation for total effects of features in online controlled experiments. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 491–499. Estimate Level Adjustment For Inference With Proxies Under Random Distribution Shifts

2018
[25]

Zachary Lipton, Yu-Xiang Wang, and Alexander Smola. 2018. Detecting and correcting for label shift with black box predictors. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3122–3130

2018
[26]

Viet-An Nguyen, Peibei Shi, Jagdish Ramakrishnan, Udi Weinsberg, Henry C Lin, Steve Metz, Neil Chandra, Jane Jing, and Dimitris Kalimeris. 2020. CLARA: confi- dence of labels and raters. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2542–2552

2020
[27]

Ross L Prentice. 1989. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria.Statistics in medicine8, 4 (1989), 431–440

1989
[28]

Herbert Robbins. 1964. The empirical Bayes approach to statistical decision problems.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics35, 1 (1964), 1–20

1964
[29]

Walter J Rogan and Beth Gladen. 1978. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test.American journal of epidemiology107, 1 (1978), 71–76

1978
[30]

Tal Sarig, Ido Guy, Ami Tavory, Udi Weinsberg, and Stratis Ioannidis. 2025. Mind the Gap: Delayed Label Bias-Variance Tradeoffs in Predicting Likelihood of Nonpayment. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 2. 4784–4795

2025
[31]

Bernhard Schölkopf, Dominik Janzing, Jonas Peters, Eleni Sgouritsa, Kun Zhang, and Joris Mooij. 2012. On causal and anticausal learning. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning. 459–466

2012
[32]

Hidetoshi Shimodaira. 2000. Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function.Journal of statistical planning and inference90, 2 (2000), 227–244

2000
[33]

Masashi Sugiyama, Shinichi Nakajima, Hisashi Kashima, Paul Buenau, and Mo- toaki Kawanabe. 2007. Direct importance estimation with model selection and its application to covariate shift adaptation.Advances in neural information processing systems20 (2007)

2007
[34]

Richard H Thaler. 1988. Anomalies: The winner’s curse.Journal of economic perspectives2, 1 (1988), 191–202

1988
[35]

Allen Tran, Aurélien Bibaut, and Nathan Kallus. 2024. Inferring the long-term causal effects of long-term treatments from short-term experiments. InProceed- ings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. 48565–48577

2024
[36]

Nilesh Tripuraneni, Lee Richardson, Alexander D’Amour, Jacopo Soriano, and Steve Yadlowsky. 2024. Choosing a proxy metric from past experiments. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 5803–5812

2024
[37]

2006.Semiparametric theory and missing data

Anastasios A Tsiatis. 2006.Semiparametric theory and missing data. Vol. 4. Springer

2006
[38]

2000.Asymptotic statistics

Aad W Van der Vaart. 2000.Asymptotic statistics. Vol. 3. Cambridge university press

2000
[39]

Siruo Wang, Tyler H McCormick, and Jeffrey T Leek. 2020. Methods for correcting inference based on outcomes predicted by machine learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 48 (2020), 30266–30275

2020
[40]

Siqi Wu and Paul Resnick. 2024. Calibrate-extrapolate: Rethinking prevalence estimation with black box classifiers. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 18. 1634–1647. A Simulation parameters and ground-truth prevalence In all simulations we set 𝑃= 4. For 𝑠∈ { 1, . . . , 𝐾− 1}, we draw 𝜇𝑠 uniformly from the Eucl...

2024