High-dimensional mediation analysis is often associated with a multiple testing problem for detecting significant mediators. Assessing the uncertainty of this detecting process via false discovery rate (FDR) has garnered great interest. To control the FDR in multiple testing, two essential steps are involved: ranking and selection. Existing approaches either construct p-values without calibration or disregard the joint information across tests, leading to conservation in FDR control or non-optimal ranking rules for multiple hypotheses. In this paper, we develop an adaptive mediation detection procedure (referred to as AMDP) to identify relevant mediators while asymptotically controlling the FDR in high-dimensional mediation analysis. AMDP produces the optimal rule for ranking hypotheses and proposes a data-driven strategy to determine the threshold for mediator selection. This novel method captures information from the proportions of composite null hypotheses and the distribution of p-values, which turns the high dimensionality into an advantage instead of a limitation. The numerical studies on synthetic and real data sets illustrate the performances of AMDP compared with existing approaches.

Deciding on an appropriate intervention requires a causal model of a treatment, the outcome, and potential mediators. Causal mediation analysis lets us distinguish between direct and indirect effects of the intervention, but has mostly been studied in a static setting. In healthcare, data come in the form of complex, irregularly sampled time-series, with dynamic interdependencies between a treatment, outcomes, and mediators across time. Existing approaches to dynamic causal mediation analysis are limited to regular measurement intervals, simple parametric models, and disregard long-range mediator--outcome interactions. To address these limitations, we propose a non-parametric mediator--outcome model where the mediator is assumed to be a temporal point process that interacts with the outcome process. With this model, we estimate the direct and indirect effects of an external intervention on the outcome, showing how each of these affects the whole future trajectory. We demonstrate on semi-synthetic data that our method can accurately estimate direct and indirect effects.

Our work reveals a structured shortcoming of the existing mainstream self-supervised learning methods. Whereas self-supervised learning frameworks usually take the prevailing perfect instance level invariance hypothesis for granted, we carefully investigate the pitfalls behind. Particularly, we argue that the existing augmentation pipeline for generating multiple positive views naturally introduces out-of-distribution (OOD) samples that undermine the learning of the downstream tasks. Generating diverse positive augmentations on the input does not always pay off in benefiting downstream tasks. To overcome this inherent deficiency, we introduce a lightweight latent variable model UOTA, targeting the view sampling issue for self-supervised learning. UOTA adaptively searches for the most important sampling region to produce views, and provides viable choice for outlier-robust self-supervised learning approaches.

Causal mediation analysis can unpack the black box of causality and is therefore a powerful tool for disentangling causal pathways in biomedical and social sciences, and also for evaluating machine learning fairness. To reduce bias for estimating Natural Direct and Indirect Effects in mediation analysis, we propose a new method called DeepMed that uses deep neural networks (DNNs) to cross-fit the infinite-dimensional nuisance functions in the efficient influence functions. We obtain novel theoretical results that our DeepMed method (1) can achieve semiparametric efficiency bound without imposing sparsity constraints on the DNN architecture and (2) can adapt to certain low dimensional structures of the nuisance functions, significantly advancing the existing literature on DNN-based semiparametric causal inference. Extensive synthetic experiments are conducted to support our findings and also expose the gap between theory and practice. As a proof of concept, we apply DeepMed to analyze two real datasets on machine learning fairness and reach conclusions consistent with previous findings.

Many interpretation methods for neural models in natural language processing investigate how information is encoded inside hidden representations. However, these methods can only measure whether the information exists, not whether it is actually used by the model. We propose a methodology grounded in the theory of causal mediation analysis for interpreting which parts of a model are causally implicated in its behavior. The approach enables us to analyze the mechanisms that facilitate the flow of information from input to output through various model components, known as mediators. As a case study, we apply this methodology to analyzing gender bias in pre-trained Transformer language models. We study the role of individual neurons and attention heads in mediating gender bias across three datasets designed to gauge a model's sensitivity to gender bias. Our mediation analysis reveals that gender bias effects are concentrated in specific components of the model that may exhibit highly specialized behavior.

Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior: At each time, the algorithm observes an action chosen by a fallible agent, and decides whether to that agent's decision, with an alternative, or the expert's opinion. For instance, in clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances, thus real-world decision support is often limited to monitoring and forecasting. Instead, such an intermediary would strike a prudent balance between the former (purely prescriptive) and latter (purely descriptive) approaches, while providing an efficient interface between human mistakes and expert feedback. In this work, we first formalize the sequential problem of ---that is, of simultaneously learning and evaluating mediator policies from scratch with: In each round, deferring to the oracle obviates the risk of error, but incurs an upfront penalty, and reveals the otherwise hidden expert action as a new training data point. Second, we motivate and propose a solution that seeks to trade off (immediate) loss terms against (future) improvements in generalization error; in doing so, we identify why conventional bandit algorithms may fail. Finally, through experiments and sensitivities on a variety of datasets, we illustrate consistent gains over applicable benchmarks on performance measures with respect to the mediator policy, the learned model, and the decision-making system as a whole.

Pre-trained Time Series Foundational Models (TSFMs) represent a significant advance, capable of forecasting diverse time series with complex characteristics, including varied seasonalities, trends, and long-range dependencies. Despite their primary goal of universal time series forecasting, their efficacy is far from uniform; divergent training protocols and data sources cause individual TSFMs to exhibit highly variable performance across different forecasting tasks, domains, and horizons. Leveraging this complementary expertise by arbitrating existing TSFM outputs presents a compelling strategy, yet this remains a largely unexplored area of research. In this paper, we conduct a thorough examination of how different TSFMs exhibit specialized performance profiles across various forecasting settings, and how we can effectively leverage this behavior in arbitration between different time series models. We specifically analyze how factors such as model selection and forecast horizon distribution can influence the efficacy of arbitration strategies. Based on this analysis, we propose Synapse, a novel arbitration framework for TSFMs. Synapse is designed to dynamically leverage a pool of TSFMs, assign and adjust predictive weights based on their relative, context-dependent performance, and construct a robust forecast distribution by adaptively sampling from the output quantiles of constituent models. Experimental results demonstrate that Synapse consistently outperforms other popular ensembling techniques as well as individual TSFMs, demonstrating Synapse's efficacy in time series forecasting.

Systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing scientific evidence but remain labor-intensive, especially when extracting detailed methodological information. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating methodological assessments, promising to transform evidence synthesis. Here, using causal mediation analysis as a representative methodological domain, we benchmarked state-of-the-art LLMs against expert human reviewers across 180 full-text scientific articles. Model performance closely correlated with human judgments (accuracy correlation 0.71; F1 correlation 0.97), achieving near-human accuracy on straightforward, explicitly stated methodological criteria. However, accuracy sharply declined on complex, inference-intensive assessments, lagging expert reviewers by up to 15%. Errors commonly resulted from superficial linguistic cues -- for instance, models frequently misinterpreted keywords like "longitudinal" or "sensitivity" as automatic evidence of rigorous methodological approache, leading to systematic misclassifications. Longer documents yielded lower model accuracy, whereas publication year showed no significant effect. Our findings highlight an important pattern for practitioners using LLMs for methods review and synthesis from full texts: current LLMs excel at identifying explicit methodological features but require human oversight for nuanced interpretations. Integrating automated information extraction with targeted expert review thus provides a promising approach to enhance efficiency and methodological rigor in evidence synthesis across diverse scientific fields.

We present SLEAN (Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network), a deterministic framework for coordinating multiple LLM providers through text-based prompt orchestration. Unlike complex multi-agent systems requiring specialized infrastructure, SLEAN operates as a simple prompt bridge between LLMs using .txt templates, requiring no deep technical knowledge for deployment. The three-phase protocol formed by independent analysis, cross-critique, and arbitration, filters harmful AI-generated code suggestions before production deployment, addressing how AI-assisted debugging increasingly produces modifications that introduce unnecessary complexity, break existing functionality, or address problems. Evaluating 15 software bugs, we analyzed 69 AI-generated fix propositions. SLEAN's filtering accepted 22 fixes (31.9%, 95% CI 20.9-42.9%) while rejecting 47 that would have been harmful if applied verbatim. The arbitration process reduced code change surface by 83-90% relative to raw AI outputs, enforcing minimal causal edits over scope-expanding modifications. Minimal Type 2 inputs proved more efficient than detailed Type 1 inputs, requiring 2.85 versus 3.56 propositions per accepted fix (35.1% versus 28.1% acceptance, about a 20% efficiency gain). Agreement between AI systems showed weak correlation with fix quality: high convergence (at least 80%) occurred in 4 of 15 cases and improved acceptance by only 2.4% points; arbitration appeared only at exactly 10% convergence in 2 of 15 cases, although low convergence alone did not necessitate arbitration. The file-driven, provider-agnostic architecture enables deployment without specialized coding expertise, making it applicable to security auditing, code review, document verification, and other domains requiring reliable multi-provider synthesis with end-to-end auditability.