In randomized trials involving multiple treatments, bivariate survival outcomes present significant analytical challenges for making decisions. This paper addresses the problem of deriving optimal individualized treatment rules to maximize the joint survival probability beyond fixed time points $(t_1, t_2)$ through deep neural networks, while accounting for right censoring. We propose a novel approach that models treatment rules via stochastic policies, coupling marginal accelerated failure time models via link function to capture bivariate dependence. To enhance robustness and effectiveness of decision making, we introduce an adaptive prediction-powered method that leverages auxiliary predictions from machine learning models.

Cluster analysis is a widely applied machine learning technique to understand the existing patterns in the population of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), in order to explore their physical sources. In the present scenario, the number of clusters corresponding to differentiable groups is still under conflict, in spite of numerous attempts with the state-of-the-art clustering procedures. This crucial unknown parameter needs to be evaluated, either directly or indirectly in terms of other tuning parameters, to produce the clusters in GRBs through implementation of an appropriate clustering algorithm. While most of the applied algorithms reached two physically explained groups of merger and collapsar predominated by the short and long bursts respectively, other statistical approaches violated this binary partition. However, physical establishment of any additional cluster(s) is not yet confirmed. Therefore, we propose a new algorithm, from a different stream of clustering referred to as `completely parameter-free', which carries out the classification of GRBs in a manner that has not been tried so far. It indicates two main groups, of short and long duration bursts from the BATSE sample, compatible with the merger-collapsar theory.

A central goal of modern causal inference is estimating heterogeneous treatment effects to answer questions like "how does an intervention affect each unit," rather than only on average. We study this problem with panel-data where we observe $n$ units across $m$ times under unknown, non-uniform treatment assignments. The data in this setting is naturally represented as a matrix of all unit--time treatment effects. Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects can then be expressed as obtaining a good estimation of each row's average in this matrix. This allows us to formulate the problem as matrix completion, which can be solved under natural low-rankness assumptions. However, existing matrix-completion guarantees are not powerful enough to get meaningful bounds for the per-row guarantee required for estimating the heterogeneous treatment effect; roughly speaking, they are only useful for estimating average treatment effect bounds, as also illustrated in a recent line of work. We give a simple, computationally efficient estimator that, without knowledge of the propensities and under standard low-rankness and regularity assumptions, achieves a row-wise $\ell_2$ error of $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\frac{1}{n} + \frac{n}{m^2}})$. Technically, our analysis establishes the first sharp row-wise $\ell_2$-perturbation bound for low-rank approximation, complementing existing spectral-, Frobenius-, and entrywise perturbation theory.

Estimating how much an intervention helps a given individual the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is increasingly central to decision-making in medicine, economics, and policy, where an estimate is most useful when accompanied by a calibrated uncertainty interval. We study the few-placebo regime, in which one treatment arm is much smaller than the other, as arises in unequal-allocation trials and small-holdout $A/B$ tests. The standard estimator in this setting is the X-Learner, and a natural way to obtain credible intervals is to make its second stage Bayesian. We show that these intervals under-cover: they contain the true effect less often than their nominal level. We trace this to a structural cause the X-Learner's regression target inherits the bias of a nuisance model fitted to the small arm, so the posterior is centered away from the true effect and we find that the standard remedy, regressing an orthogonal doubly-robust score, is also unreliable here, since the regime's limited overlap leaves the estimator either highly variable or, once stabilized, biased once more. Both consequences reflect a pattern that extends beyond causal inference: a separately estimated variance is attached to a point estimate of a hard-to-learn quantity, and the point estimate's bias is not captured by that variance. We propose GP-CATE, which models each arm's outcome surface with a Gaussian process, so the scarce arm's uncertainty enters the posterior directly rather than as an unmodelled bias. Across synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks, GP-CATE attains calibrated coverage where the estimators we compare against including Causal Forest and BART do not, at the cost of intervals that are appropriately wide when the data are uninformative.

We develop semiparametrically efficient inference for kernel measures of noise heterogeneity in additive noise models. In many applications, the regression function is estimated using flexible machine learning methods. Downstream procedures based on the resulting residuals can then inherit first-stage bias: regression error may induce spurious dependence between covariates and residuals, invalidating the assumptions needed for standard analysis. We construct a novel Hilbert-valued one-step estimator of the kernel covariance operator between covariates and residuals. Our estimator yields bootstrap-calibrated tests for residual independence and goodness of fit in additive noise models, while also providing asymptotically efficient confidence intervals for the kernel dependence measure under noise heterogeneity. The framework extends to settings with additional covariates, enabling inference on distributional heterogeneity of residual noise across treatment groups. Simulations show improved calibration and power relative to naive plug-in residual methods.

Safety defenses for large language models (LLMs) are typically trained and evaluated on single-turn prompts, yet real attacks often unfold as indirect, multi-turn probing. To defend against this more nuanced form of deception, we present a unified pipeline that generates realistic multi-turn deceptive question sets via multi-objective genetic prompt optimization with co-evolving mutation operators. We validate this dataset through a human study, which also revealed that early generations yielded the most convincing deception and practical constraints such as adherence filtering and ordering effects. Using this data, we were able to detect deceptive attempts to access prohibited information using simple, explainable geometric signals in embedding space coupled with a lightweight feed-forward classifier. Three geometric features (angular coverage, distance ratio, and linearity) augmented with pairwise similarity statistics led to a compact predictive model that achieved consistently high recall (0.89) across base, reworded, and truncated (three-turn) scenarios, with test-time F1 ranging from 0.74-0.86. The results support a central hypothesis that multi-turn deceptive intent leaves a stable geometric footprint that enables lightweight, transparent screening without expensive end-to-end training. We further discuss responsible uses, limitations, and paths toward larger, more diverse human-evaluated datasets. The primary contribution to artificial intelligence is the multi-objective evolutionary framework for prompt generation, and the engineering application is the deployment of a lightweight geometric detection system for LLM safety infrastructure.

Fairness-accuracy trade-offs are a central concern in the deployment of fairness-aware machine learning methods. When sensitive attributes are unavailable at inference time-the so called unawareness setting, principled methods for obtaining accurate predictions under relaxed fairness constraints are largely missing. In this work, we address this gap by formulating regression under a demographic parity penalty as an optimal transport problem. Our framework unifies both the \emph{aware} and \emph{unaware} settings and characterizes optimal prediction functions via optimal transport maps, under both squared Wasserstein-2 and Total Variation penalties. These results reveal that the choice of penalty reflects fundamentally different fairness philosophies: the Wasserstein penalty induces a smooth, population-wide compromise, while Total Variation enforces exact parity for a subset of individuals. Building on these theoretical characterizations, we propose an algorithm that is simple to implement, computationally efficient, and consistently matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on real-world benchmarks.

We study inference in stochastic block models (SBMs) through the lens of optimal transport (OT). We first establish that maximum likelihood variational inference (MLVI) can be interpreted as a semi-relaxed Gromov-Wasserstein (srGW) projection with entropic regularization. While this formulation yields accurate clustering, the entropic regularization prevents transport plans to be sparse, hindering intrinsic model selection. Consequently, we investigate unregularized srGW estimators, and prove that they consistently recover both the SBM connectivity matrix and latent cluster assignments in the asymptotic regime. However, this asymptotic property does not translate into reliable model selection in finite samples, and calls for additional mechanisms to promote sparsity in the inferred cluster proportions. We empirically show that such a regularized formulation yields estimators that simultaneously recover model parameters and select the number of clusters in a single optimization problem, thereby avoiding costly grid search or heuristic model selection procedures.

Nonlinear machine-learning models are increasingly used to discover causal relationships in time-series data, yet the interpretation of their outputs remains poorly understood. In particular, causal scores produced by regularized neural autoregressive models are often treated as analogues of regression coefficients, leading to misleading claims of statistical significance. In this paper, we argue that causal relevance in nonlinear time-series models should be evaluated through forecast necessity rather than coefficient magnitude, and we present a practical evaluation procedure for doing so. We present an interpretable evaluation framework based on systematic edge ablation and forecast comparison, which tests whether a candidate causal relationship is required for accurate prediction. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a case study model, we apply this framework to a real-world case study of democratic development, modeled as a multivariate time series of panel data - democracy indicators across 139 countries. We show that relationships with similar causal scores can differ dramatically in their predictive necessity due to redundancy, temporal persistence, and regime-specific effects. Our results demonstrate how forecast-necessity testing supports more reliable causal reasoning in applied AI systems and provides practical guidance for interpreting nonlinear time-series models in high-stakes domains.

When treatment effects are naturally expressed as ratios -- as in medicine, pricing, and marketing -- the ratio-based CATE $τ(x) = E[Y|W=1,X=x] / E[Y|W=0,X=x]$ is the appropriate estimand. Yet existing estimators either impose a log-linear parametric structure or apply generic regression without robustness guarantees for this functional. We introduce the Q-Learner, which decomposes $τ(x)$ into a product of two odds ratios, reducing ratio-CATE estimation for binary outcomes to two propensity classification tasks. We further derive doubly robust augmentations for both S/T- and Q-style ratio learners and characterize their distinct robustness properties. In benchmarks on seven RCT datasets, the Q-Learner is the most consistently competitive method in low-conversion regimes, where its propensity-only construction sidesteps the imbalanced regression that hurts outcome-based estimators. On four observational datasets, where propensity must be estimated and confounding cannot be ruled out, the DR learners introduced here decisively come out on top, making them practitioners' natural default for confounded observational data.