Many problems in computational science and engineering become one-to-many after coarse graining, partial observation, or inverse reconstruction: a resolved state may not determine a unique subgrid forcing, a structural descriptor may not determine a unique effective response, and a low-resolution observation may correspond to many plausible high-resolution fields. In such settings, deterministic surrogates may learn a well-defined mathematical object while still missing application-relevant uncertainty. This tutorial develops a self-contained module centered on the conditional-mean barrier: the point at which a squared-loss predictor has reached the conditional mean and the remaining error is irreducible aleatoric variance. We give two diagnostics for locating this barrier, residual-feature orthogonality and the coefficient of determination against its explained-variance ceiling, and prove that adding latent randomness to a squared-loss predictor collapses it back to the conditional mean. Crossing the barrier therefore requires a loss that scores distributions rather than point predictions. We briefly organize common distributional objectives, including negative log-likelihood, moment and observable matching, variational objectives, adversarial divergences, and score matching, by the feature of the conditional law each targets. The emphasis is the boundary itself and a finite-data procedure for recognizing it, rather than a survey of methods beyond it. CPU-based demonstrations on a two-branch law and a two-scale Lorenz-96 closure problem show how the diagnostics distinguish deterministic underfitting from residual distributional variability.

Deploying clinical prediction models across healthcare systems often fails when key training covariates are unavailable at deployment and labeled outcomes are limited in the target domain. For example, high-performing models for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) rely on detailed prehospital measurements routinely collected in high-resource settings but unavailable in many international registries. Existing methods either discard missing covariates, sacrificing predictive information, or rely on untestable assumptions about their target distribution. We propose DRUM (\underline{D}istributionally \underline{R}obust \underline{U}nsupervised transfer learning with structurally \underline{M}issing covariates), a framework that transfers prediction models to target populations where certain covariates are structurally absent and outcome labels are unavailable. DRUM partitions covariates into shared components ($X$), observed across all settings, and missing components ($A$), observed only in the source. Rather than imputing missing covariates, DRUM optimizes worst-case predictive performance over the unknown target distribution of $A \mid X$ using a neural network generator, with a robustness parameter controlling allowable deviation from the source conditional. We further develop a bias correction procedure that reduces sensitivity to nuisance estimation error. Simulations show substantial improvements in both mean and worst-case prediction error under distribution shift. Applied to cross-national OHCA prediction, transferring models from a US registry to multiple Asian registries where prehospital variables are unrecorded, DRUM yields better-calibrated predictions and improved clinical classification performance across sites.

Language models trained on observed sequences are often described as learning the conditional distribution of the next token given previous tokens. This description is only conditionally correct. A model trained on realized token trajectories does not observe full conditional laws; it receives sampled continuations. Moreover, real language generation is conditioned not only on previous words but also on non-textual circumstances: facts, events, intentions, goals, beliefs, social context, and task-specific constraints. This paper distinguishes three objects that are often conflated: the full conditional language process conditioned on latent circumstances, the marginal text-only process obtained by integrating those circumstances out, and the model-induced distribution learned from finite observed corpora. The paper argues that interpreting model training as estimating the marginal text-only law requires strong assumptions of stationarity, representativeness, and ergodicity, assumptions that are standard in statistical estimation but problematic when applied to heterogeneous language corpora. Even if these assumptions hold, the marginal text-only law is useful only when the observed prefix is an approximately sufficient statistic for the latent circumstances relevant to continuation. In information-theoretic terms, usefulness requires that the residual conditional mutual information between the next token and the omitted circumstances, given the observed text, be small. The paper then extends this argument to heterogeneous training corpora. Finally, the paper interprets Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and tool use as conditional sufficiency devices.

This article proposes an inferential framework for comparing predictor importance in classification problems with categorical response variables. The approach is based on the categorical Gini correlation (CGC) proposed by Dang et al. (2020), a measure of dependence between numerical predictors and categorical outcomes. Predictor importance is evaluated by testing differences in CGCs across competing predictor groups. The proposed methodology accommodates predictors of arbitrary and unequal dimensions and allows for dependence between predictor groups. Asymptotic normality of the test statistic is established under both the null and alternative hypotheses, and the resulting test is shown to be consistent. In addition to deriving the asymptotic distribution, a nonparametric bootstrap procedure is developed as an alternative approach to inference. Simulation studies, along with applications to breast cancer and human activity recognition datasets, demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

The validity of statistical inference depends critically on how data are collected. When data gathered through active data collection (ADC) are reused for a post-hoc inferential task, conventional inference can fail because the sampling is adaptively biased toward regions favored by the collection strategy. This issue is especially pronounced in black-box optimization, where sequential model-based optimization (SMBO) methods such as the tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE) and Gaussian process upper confidence bound (GP-UCB) preferentially concentrate evaluations in promising regions. We study statistical inference on actively collected data when the inferential target is constructed in a data-dependent manner after data collection. To enable valid inference in this setting, we propose post-ADC inference, a framework that accounts for the biases arising from both the active data collection process and the subsequent data-driven target construction. Our method builds on selective inference and provides valid $p$-values and confidence intervals that correct for both sources of bias. The framework applies to a broad class of ADC processes by imposing only assumptions on the observation noise, without requiring any assumptions on the underlying black-box function or the surrogate model used by the SMBO algorithm. Empirical results also show that post-ADC inference provides valid inference for data collected by GP-UCB and TPE.

Distributional causal inference requires estimating not only average treatment effects but also interventional outcome distributions, including quantiles, tail risks, and policy-dependent uncertainty. As a method for distributional causal inference, generative adversarial network (GAN)-based counterfactual methods are flexible tools for this task. However, these methods have several limitations. First, the objectives of certain techniques do not coincide with the statistical risk of the identifiable causal target, and therefore provide limited theoretical guarantees regarding estimable counterfactual distributions or optimality. Second, they tend to rely on unstable density-based methods, such as density ratio estimation. In this paper, we propose GANICE (GAN for Interventional Conditional Estimation) with several advantages: it (i) clarifies the conditional interventional distribution for each treatment--covariate state as the causal estimation target; (ii) estimates the conditional distribution such that its averaged Wasserstein risk is minimized; (iii) establishes minimax optimality. GANICE achieves these advantages through the introduction of the extended Wasserstein distance, the incorporation of a cellwise critic in its dual, and an optimality proof based on Besov space theory. Our experiments demonstrate that GANICE consistently outperforms existing methods.

High-fidelity (HF) data are often expensive to collect and therefore scarce, making conditional quantiles difficult to estimate accurately. We propose a two-stage, model-agnostic method for multi-fidelity quantile regression. The central idea is a local quantile link: at each covariate value, the HF quantile is represented as a low-fidelity (LF) quantile evaluated at a covariate-dependent level. This reformulation reduces the problem to estimating the level function, which can be smoother than the HF quantile itself when the LF and HF conditional distributions have similar shapes. We also study the complementary regime in which this advantage weakens and introduce a correction step to improve robustness. Our theory characterizes when the proposed estimator converges faster than direct quantile regression using HF data alone and when the correction step provides further improvement. Experiments on synthetic and real data show that our method yields more accurate quantile estimates and tighter conformal prediction intervals.

Constructing valid and informative conformal prediction regions for multi-dimensional outputs remains a fundamental challenge. While conformal prediction provides finite-sample, distribution-free coverage guarantees, its practical performance critically depends on the choice of nonconformity score. Existing approaches often rely on restrictive geometric assumptions or require explicit likelihood evaluation and invertible transformations, limiting their applicability in complex generative settings. In this work, we introduce TRACE (TRansport Alignment Conformal Estimation), a conformal prediction framework that defines nonconformity through transport alignment in diffusion and flow matching models. Rather than evaluating likelihoods, we measure how well a candidate output aligns with the learned generative dynamics by averaging denoising or velocity-matching errors along stochastic transport trajectories. The resulting transport-based scores are scalar-valued and can be calibrated using split conformal prediction, yielding valid marginal coverage under exchangeability. We further analyze the statistical properties of the proposed scores and their sensitivity to computational budget. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate valid coverage and show that the resulting regions adapt naturally to multimodal and non-convex conditional distributions.

Mediation analysis has traditionally focused on outcome-level summary contrasts, such as mean effects, which may obscure substantial distributional changes induced by complex and nonlinear causal mechanisms. We propose Distributional Causal Mediation Analysis (DCMA), a generative learning framework for identifying and estimating treatment effects on entire outcome distributions transmitted through multiple mediators. DCMA learns conditional generative models for the mediators and the outcome, recovering the relevant conditional distributions from observational data. Leveraging the identification formulas, it reconstructs interventional outcome distributions via Monte Carlo forward simulation by noise resampling, enabling the capture of both classical summary effects and rich distributional contrasts such as energy distance and the Wasserstein distance. Analytical error bounds are derived to decompose how estimation errors in the learned conditional models propagate to the reconstructed interventional outcome distributions. The empirical effectiveness of DCMA is demonstrated through numerical experiments and real-world data applications.

Comparing conditional distributions is a fundamental challenge in statistics and machine learning, with applications across a wide range of domains. While proposed methods for measuring discrepancies using kernel embeddings of distributions in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) provide powerful non-parametric techniques, the existing literature remains fragmented and lacks a unified theoretical treatment. This paper addresses this gap by establishing a coherent framework for studying kernel-based methods to measure divergence between conditional distributions through what we refer to as conditional maximum mean discrepancy (CMMD). The CMMD consists of a family of metrics which we call levels, with three special cases each using a different type of RKHS embedding: CMMD$_0$ (conditional mean operators), CMMD$_1$ (conditional mean embeddings), and CMMD$_2$ (joint mean embeddings). We additionally introduce a general level $s$ CMMD, clarifying the required assumptions, and establishing mathematical connections between the levels through the lens of operator-based smoothing. In addition to reviewing previously proposed estimators, we introduce a novel doubly robust estimator for the CMMD that maintains consistency provided at least one of the underlying models is correctly specified. We provide numerical experiments demonstrating that the CMMD effectively captures complex conditional dependencies for statistical testing.