AISTATS Experiments
Use this before submission when the empirical or simulation story is not yet locked.
Experiment audit
- Map each empirical claim to a table, figure, simulation, ablation, or robustness check.
- Include baselines that represent both ML practice and relevant statistical methods.
- Separate synthetic simulations that validate assumptions from real-data experiments that
show practical relevance.
- Report uncertainty for stochastic results: repeated runs, standard errors, confidence
intervals, paired tests, or bootstrap intervals when appropriate.
- Report dataset splits, preprocessing, metrics, hyperparameter search ranges, final chosen
settings, selection criteria, random seeds, hardware, software versions, and runtime.
- Add ablations for the mechanism, not just cosmetic variants.
- Audit for leakage, selection bias, multiple-comparison issues, and mismatch between
theoretical assumptions and empirical setup.
What experiments are for at this venue
- AISTATS experiments exist to validate theory, not to win leaderboards. One focused
simulation confirming a predicted rate outweighs five extra benchmark datasets.
- The strongest design triad: a synthetic study where assumptions hold exactly, a study where
they are deliberately violated, and a real-data study showing practical behavior.
- Reviewers, frequently statisticians, check whether the empirical regime — sample size,
dimension, noise level — matches the asymptotic regime of the theorems. A bound proven as
n grows but tested only at n = 500 invites the question of relevance.
Theory-validation design table
| Theoretical claim |
Matching experiment |
Reject pattern avoided |
| Convergence rate in n |
Log-log error versus n with fitted slope |
"Rates asserted but never plotted" |
| Confidence-interval coverage |
Empirical coverage across many replications |
"Nominal 95 percent never verified" |
| Regret bound |
Cumulative regret versus horizon, with the bound curve overlaid |
"Bound and trajectory never compared" |
| Robustness to misspecification |
Violation-severity sweep |
"Guarantees hold under assumptions the experiments quietly break" |
Vignette: a kernel conditional independence test
Suppose the paper proves finite-sample type-I error control under a boundedness assumption.
The matching plan: simulate under the null at several sample sizes to verify size, sweep
dependence strength for power curves, then inject heavy-tailed noise that breaks boundedness
to map degradation — every panel tied to a numbered theorem or remark.
Statistical reporting floor
- Replication counts and seeds for every stochastic figure; captions must say whether bars
are standard errors, confidence intervals, or quantiles.
- Report the compute actually consumed rather than vague feasibility language.
Output format
[Experiment readiness] strong / adequate / weak
[Claim -> evidence map] <claim: table/figure/simulation>
[Missing statistical evidence] <uncertainty/test/seed/baseline>
[Reproducibility gaps] <hyperparameters/compute/data/code>
[Decision-critical next run] <one experiment or simulation>
1---2name: aistats-experiments3description: Use when designing or auditing AISTATS experiments, simulations, baselines, statistical tests, uncertainty estimates, ablations, random seeds, hyperparameters, compute, dataset handling, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on experiments that validate theorems rather than chase leaderboards.4---56# AISTATS Experiments78Use this before submission when the empirical or simulation story is not yet locked.910## Experiment audit1112- Map each empirical claim to a table, figure, simulation, ablation, or robustness check.13- Include baselines that represent both ML practice and relevant statistical methods.14- Separate synthetic simulations that validate assumptions from real-data experiments that15 show practical relevance.16- Report uncertainty for stochastic results: repeated runs, standard errors, confidence17 intervals, paired tests, or bootstrap intervals when appropriate.18- Report dataset splits, preprocessing, metrics, hyperparameter search ranges, final chosen19 settings, selection criteria, random seeds, hardware, software versions, and runtime.20- Add ablations for the mechanism, not just cosmetic variants.21- Audit for leakage, selection bias, multiple-comparison issues, and mismatch between22 theoretical assumptions and empirical setup.2324## What experiments are for at this venue2526- AISTATS experiments exist to validate theory, not to win leaderboards. One focused27 simulation confirming a predicted rate outweighs five extra benchmark datasets.28- The strongest design triad: a synthetic study where assumptions hold exactly, a study where29 they are deliberately violated, and a real-data study showing practical behavior.30- Reviewers, frequently statisticians, check whether the empirical regime — sample size,31 dimension, noise level — matches the asymptotic regime of the theorems. A bound proven as32 n grows but tested only at n = 500 invites the question of relevance.3334## Theory-validation design table3536| Theoretical claim | Matching experiment | Reject pattern avoided |37|---|---|---|38| Convergence rate in n | Log-log error versus n with fitted slope | "Rates asserted but never plotted" |39| Confidence-interval coverage | Empirical coverage across many replications | "Nominal 95 percent never verified" |40| Regret bound | Cumulative regret versus horizon, with the bound curve overlaid | "Bound and trajectory never compared" |41| Robustness to misspecification | Violation-severity sweep | "Guarantees hold under assumptions the experiments quietly break" |4243## Vignette: a kernel conditional independence test4445Suppose the paper proves finite-sample type-I error control under a boundedness assumption.46The matching plan: simulate under the null at several sample sizes to verify size, sweep47dependence strength for power curves, then inject heavy-tailed noise that breaks boundedness48to map degradation — every panel tied to a numbered theorem or remark.4950## Statistical reporting floor5152- Replication counts and seeds for every stochastic figure; captions must say whether bars53 are standard errors, confidence intervals, or quantiles.54- Report the compute actually consumed rather than vague feasibility language.5556## Output format5758```text59[Experiment readiness] strong / adequate / weak60[Claim -> evidence map] <claim: table/figure/simulation>61[Missing statistical evidence] <uncertainty/test/seed/baseline>62[Reproducibility gaps] <hyperparameters/compute/data/code>63[Decision-critical next run] <one experiment or simulation>64```
brycewang-stanford