Causal effect estimation from observational data is fundamental across various applications.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides--especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs.

Randomized experiments are the preferred approach for evaluating the effects of interventions, but they are costly and often yield estimates with substantial uncertainty. On the other hand, in silico experiments leveraging foundation models offer a cost-effective alternative that can potentially attain higher statistical precision. However, the benefits of in silico experiments come with a significant risk: statistical inferences are not valid if the models fail to accurately predict experimental responses to interventions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that integrates the predictions from multiple foundation models with experimental data while preserving valid statistical inference. Our estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal, with asymptotic variance no larger than the standard estimator based on experimental data alone. Importantly, these statistical properties hold even when model predictions are arbitrarily biased. Empirical results across several randomized experiments show that our estimator offers substantial precision gains, equivalent to a reduction of up to 20% in the sample size needed to match the same precision as the standard estimator based on experimental data alone.

Data fusion techniques integrate information from heterogeneous data sources to improve learning, generalization, and decision-making across data sciences. In causal inference, these methods leverage rich observational data to improve causal effect estimation, while maintaining the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials. Existing approaches often relax the strong "no unobserved confounding" assumption by instead assuming exchangeability of counterfactual outcomes across data sources. However, when both assumptions simultaneously fail--a common scenario in practice--current methods cannot identify or estimate causal effects. We address this limitation by proposing a novel partial identification framework that enables researchers to answer key questions such as: Is the causal effect positive/negative? and How severe must assumption violations be to overturn this conclusion?

This paper studies how to integrate historical control data with experimental data to enhance A/B testing, while addressing the distributional shift between historical and experimental datasets. We propose a pessimistic data integration method that combines two causal effect estimators constructed based on experimental and historical datasets. Our main idea is to conceptualize the weight function for this combination as a policy so that existing pessimistic policy learning algorithms are applicable to learn the optimal weight that minimizes the resulting weighted estimator's mean squared error. Additionally, we conduct comprehensive theoretical and empirical analyses to compare our method against various baseline estimators across five scenarios. Both our theoretical and numerical findings demonstrate that the proposed estimator achieves near-optimal performance across all scenarios.

Yet, modern machine learning pipelines offer a promising solution--provided their predictions yield correct conclusions. We focus on Prediction-Powered Causal Inferences (PPCI), i.e., estimating the treatment effect in an unlabeled target experiment, relying on training data with the same outcome annotated but potentially different treatment or effect modifiers.

We study the estimation of distributional treatment effects in randomized experiments with imperfect compliance. When participants do not adhere to their assigned treatments, we leverage treatment assignment as an instrumental variable to identify the local distributional treatment effect--the difference in outcome distributions between treatment and control groups for the subpopulation of compliers. We propose a regression-adjusted estimator based on a distribution regression framework with Neyman-orthogonal moment conditions, enabling robustness and flexibility with high-dimensional covariates. Our approach accommodates continuous, discrete, and mixed discrete-continuous outcomes, and applies under a broad class of covariate-adaptive randomization schemes, including stratified block designs and simple random sampling. We derive the estimator's asymptotic distribution and show that it achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound. Simulation results demonstrate favorable finite-sample performance, and we demonstrate the method's practical relevance in an application to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems show promise for automating real-world tasks but struggle to transfer across domains due to their domain-specific nature. Current approaches face two critical shortcomings: they require complete architectural redesign and full retraining of all components when applied to new domains. We introduce WORKFORCE, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that decouples strategic planning from specialized execution through a modular architecture comprising: (i) a domain-agnostic Planner for task decomposition, (ii) a Coordinator for subtask management, and (iii) specialized Workers with domain-specific tool-calling capabilities.

Despite recent progress in identifying latent causal structures using causal representation learning (CRL), what makes learned representations useful for causal downstream tasks and how to evaluate them are still not well understood. In this paper, we reinterpret CRL using a measurement model framework, where the learned representations are viewed as proxy measurements of the latent causal variables. Our approach clarifies the conditions under which learned representations support downstream causal reasoning and provides a principled basis for quantitatively assessing the quality of representations using a new Test-based Measurement EXclusivity (T-MEX) score. We validate T-MEX across diverse causal inference scenarios, including numerical simulations and real-world ecological video analysis, demonstrating that the proposed framework and corresponding score effectively assess the identification of learned representations and their usefulness for causal downstream tasks.

We study the problem of estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) in adaptive experiments where treatment can only be encouraged--rather than directly assigned--via a binary instrumental variable. Building on semiparametric efficiency theory, we derive the efficiency bound for ATE estimation under arbitrary, history-dependent instrument-assignment policies, and show it is minimized by a variance-aware allocation rule that balances outcome noise and compliance variability. Leveraging this insight, we introduce AMRIV--an Adaptive, Multiply-Robust estimator for Instrumental-Variable settings with variance-optimal assignment. AMRIV pairs (i) an online policy that adaptively approximates the optimal allocation with (ii) a sequential, influence-function-based estimator that attains the semiparametric efficiency bound while retaining multiply-robust consistency. We establish asymptotic normality, explicit convergence rates, and anytime-valid asymptotic confidence sequences that enable sequential inference. Finally, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of our approach through empirical studies, showing that adaptive instrument assignment, when combined with the AMRIV estimator, yields improved efficiency and robustness compared to existing baselines.