Determining whether an algorithmic decision-making system discriminates against a specific demographic typically involves comparing a single point estimate of a fairness metric against a predefined threshold. This practice is statistically brittle: it ignores sampling error and treats small demographic subgroups the same as large ones. The problem intensifies in intersectional analyses, where multiple sensitive attributes are considered jointly, giving rise to a larger number of smaller groups. As these groups become more granular, the data representing them becomes too sparse for reliable estimation, and fairness metrics yield excessively wide confidence intervals, precluding meaningful conclusions about potential unfair treatments. In this paper, we introduce a unified, size-adaptive, hypothesis-testing framework that turns fairness assessment into an evidence-based statistical decision. Our contribution is twofold. (i) For sufficiently large subgroups, we prove a Central-Limit result for the statistical parity difference, leading to analytic confidence intervals and a Wald test whose type-I (false positive) error is guaranteed at level $α$. (ii) For the long tail of small intersectional groups, we derive a fully Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial estimator; Monte-Carlo credible intervals are calibrated for any sample size and naturally converge to Wald intervals as more data becomes available. We validate our approach empirically on benchmark datasets, demonstrating how our tests provide interpretable, statistically rigorous decisions under varying degrees of data availability and intersectionality.

Understanding complex systems by inferring trajectories from sparse sample snapshots is a fundamental challenge in a wide range of domains, e.g., single-cell biology, meteorology, and economics. Despite advancements in Bridge and Flow matching frameworks, current methodologies rely on pairwise interpolation between adjacent snapshots. This hinders their ability to capture long-range temporal dependencies and potentially affects the coherence of the inferred trajectories. To address these issues, we introduce \textbf{Momentum Multi-Marginal Schrödinger Bridge Matching (3MSBM)}, a novel matching framework that learns smooth measure-valued splines for stochastic systems that satisfy multiple positional constraints. This is achieved by lifting the dynamics to phase space and generalizing stochastic bridges to be conditioned on several points, forming a multi-marginal conditional stochastic optimal control problem. The underlying dynamics are then learned by minimizing a variational objective, having fixed the path induced by the multi-marginal conditional bridge. As a matching approach, 3MSBM learns transport maps that preserve intermediate marginals throughout training, significantly improving convergence and scalability. Extensive experimentation in a series of real-world applications validates the superior performance of 3MSBM compared to existing methods in capturing complex dynamics with temporal dependencies, opening new avenues for training matching frameworks in multi-marginal settings.

Reinforcement-learning agents often struggle when deployed from simulation to the real-world. A dominant strategy for reducing the sim-to-real gap is domain randomization (DR) which trains the policy across many simulators produced by sampling dynamics parameters, but standard DR ignores offline data already available from the real system. We study offline domain randomization (ODR), which first fits a distribution over simulator parameters to an offline dataset. While a growing body of empirical work reports substantial gains with algorithms such as DROPO, the theoretical foundations of ODR remain largely unexplored. In this work, we (i) formalize ODR as a maximum-likelihood estimation over a parametric simulator family, (ii) prove consistency of this estimator under mild regularity and identifiability conditions, showing it converges to the true dynamics as the dataset grows, (iii) derive gap bounds demonstrating ODRs sim-to-real error is up to an O(M) factor tighter than uniform DR in the finite-simulator case (and analogous gains in the continuous setting), and (iv) introduce E-DROPO, a new version of DROPO which adds an entropy bonus to prevent variance collapse, yielding broader randomization and more robust zero-shot transfer in practice.

The safety validation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) increasingly demands efficient and reliable methods to quantify residual risk while adhering to international standards such as ISO 21448. Traditionally, Field Operational Testing (FOT) has been pivotal for macroscopic safety validation of automotive driving functions up to SAE automation level 2. However, state-of-the-art derivations for empirical safety demonstrations using FOT often result in impractical testing efforts, particularly at higher automation levels. Even at lower automation levels, this limitation - coupled with the substantial costs associated with FOT - motivates the exploration of approaches to enhance the efficiency of FOT-based macroscopic safety validation. Therefore, this publication systematically identifies and evaluates state-of-the-art Reduction Approaches (RAs) for FOT, including novel methods reported in the literature. Based on an analysis of ISO 21448, two models are derived: a generic model capturing the argumentation components of the standard, and a base model, exemplarily applied to Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems, establishing a baseline for the real-world driving requirement for a Quantitative Safety Validation of Residual Risk (QSVRR). Subsequently, the RAs are assessed using four criteria: quantifiability, threats to validity, missing links, and black box compatibility, highlighting potential benefits, inherent limitations, and identifying key areas for further research. Our evaluation reveals that, while several approaches offer potential, none are free from missing links or other substantial shortcomings. Moreover, no identified alternative can fully replace FOT, reflecting its crucial role in the safety validation of ADAS and ADS.

Language models are essentially probability distributions over token sequences. Auto-regressive models generate sentences by iteratively computing and sampling from the distribution of the next token. This iterative sampling introduces stochasticity, leading to the assumption that language models make probabilistic decisions, similar to sampling from unknown distributions. Building on this assumption, prior research has used simulated Gibbs sampling, inspired by experiments designed to elicit human priors, to infer the priors of language models. In this paper, we revisit a critical question: Do language models possess Bayesian brains? Our findings show that under certain conditions, language models can exhibit near-deterministic decision-making, such as producing maximum likelihood estimations, even with a non-zero sampling temperature. This challenges the sampling assumption and undermines previous methods for eliciting human-like priors. Furthermore, we demonstrate that without proper scrutiny, a system with deterministic behavior undergoing simulated Gibbs sampling can converge to a "false prior." To address this, we propose a straightforward approach to distinguish between stochastic and deterministic decision patterns in Gibbs sampling, helping to prevent the inference of misleading language model priors. We experiment on a variety of large language models to identify their decision patterns under various circumstances. Our results provide key insights in understanding decision making of large language models.

Machine learning (ML)-based weather models have rapidly risen to prominence due to their greater accuracy and speed than traditional forecasts based on numerical weather prediction (NWP), recently outperforming traditional ensembles in global probabilistic weather forecasting. This paper presents FGN, a simple, scalable and flexible modeling approach which significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art models. FGN generates ensembles via learned model-perturbations with an ensemble of appropriately constrained models. It is trained directly to minimize the continuous rank probability score (CRPS) of per-location forecasts. It produces state-of-the-art ensemble forecasts as measured by a range of deterministic and probabilistic metrics, makes skillful ensemble tropical cyclone track predictions, and captures joint spatial structure despite being trained only on marginals.

Generative modeling aims to produce new random examples from an unknown target distribution, given access to a finite collection of examples. Among the leading approaches, denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) construct such examples by mapping a Brownian motion via a diffusion process driven by an estimated score function. In this work, we first provide empirical evidence that DDPMs are robust to constant-variance noise in the score evaluations. We then establish finite-sample guarantees in Wasserstein-2 distance that exhibit two key features: (i) they characterize and quantify the robustness of DDPMs to noisy score estimates, and (ii) they achieve faster convergence rates than previously known results. Furthermore, we observe that the obtained rates match those known in the Gaussian case, implying their optimality.

We introduce conditional flow matching for imputation (CFMI), a new general-purpose method to impute missing data. The method combines continuous normalising flows, flow-matching, and shared conditional modelling to deal with intractabilities of traditional multiple imputation. Our comparison with nine classical and state-of-the-art imputation methods on 24 small to moderate-dimensional tabular data sets shows that CFMI matches or outperforms both traditional and modern techniques across a wide range of metrics. Applying the method to zero-shot imputation of time-series data, we find that it matches the accuracy of a related diffusion-based method while outperforming it in terms of computational efficiency. Overall, CFMI performs at least as well as traditional methods on lower-dimensional data while remaining scalable to high-dimensional settings, matching or exceeding the performance of other deep learning-based approaches, making it a go-to imputation method for a wide range of data types and dimensionalities.

There is an increasing interest in analyzing the behavior of machine learning systems against adversarial attacks. However, most of the research in adversarial machine learning has focused on studying weaknesses against evasion or poisoning attacks to predictive models in classical setups, with the susceptibility of Bayesian predictive models to attacks remaining underexplored. This paper introduces a general methodology for designing optimal evasion attacks against such models. We investigate two adversarial objectives: perturbing specific point predictions and altering the entire posterior predictive distribution. For both scenarios, we propose novel gradient-based attacks and study their implementation and properties in various computational setups.

Deep learning has recently revealed the existence of scaling laws, demonstrating that model performance follows predictable trends based on dataset and model sizes. Inspired by these findings and fascinating phenomena emerging in the over-parameterized regime, we examine a parallel direction: do similar scaling laws govern predictive uncertainties in deep learning? In identifiable parametric models, such scaling laws can be derived in a straightforward manner by treating model parameters in a Bayesian way. In this case, for example, we obtain $O(1/N)$ contraction rates for epistemic uncertainty with respect to the number of data $N$. However, in over-parameterized models, these guarantees do not hold, leading to largely unexplored behaviors. In this work, we empirically show the existence of scaling laws associated with various measures of predictive uncertainty with respect to dataset and model sizes. Through experiments on vision and language tasks, we observe such scaling laws for in- and out-of-distribution predictive uncertainty estimated through popular approximate Bayesian inference and ensemble methods. Besides the elegance of scaling laws and the practical utility of extrapolating uncertainties to larger data or models, this work provides strong evidence to dispel recurring skepticism against Bayesian approaches: "In many applications of deep learning we have so much data available: what do we need Bayes for?". Our findings show that "so much data" is typically not enough to make epistemic uncertainty negligible.