Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 15, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Standard Bayesian experimental design (BED) methods assume the experimenter alone will act on the data, choosing the best action given their own beliefs and goals. In practice, data are often acted on by external parties whose procedures the experimenter cannot change and may not know, particularly when the data are released publicly. To extend BED to such settings, we introduce usage-aware experimental design, a framework in which an adaptive design policy is trained to minimise the usage risk: the experimenter's expected loss when one or more external rules act on the collected data. These rules may be non-Bayesian or black-box, and when several may apply, we either average over them or take the worst case. We show that, unlike in standard BED, more informative data can be harmful under such rules, so the usage risk cannot in general be expressed as an expected uncertainty reduction; our framework thus strictly generalises standard BED. We then use it to tackle a range of problems that are difficult to address with existing approaches.