Classical hypothesis testing frameworks break down in contemporary settings in which null hypotheses are increasingly abstract, the same data are used to both generate and test hypotheses, and minimal assumptions about the underlying data are made. In this work, we propose a new framework for conducting valid hypothesis tests in broad contexts. We propose to add and subtract external noise generated from a symmetric shift-family to our data, $X$, to partition it into two pieces, $X^{(1)}$ and $X^{(2)}$. We provide a generic strategy for orthogonalizing $X^{(2)}$ against $X^{(1)}$ under the null hypothesis $H_0$, then show that testing whether the orthogonalization was successful provides a valid test of $H_0$ under mild assumptions. Remarkably, this framework extends naturally to the post-selection inference setting: we simply select a hypothesis on $X^{(1)}$, then perform orthogonalization under the selected null. As our approach neither requires pre-specification of the selection mechanism, nor is restricted to a small class of data-generating distributions, it dramatically expands the settings for which valid post-selection inference can be conducted. We showcase the flexibility of our proposal in several case studies involving challenging pre-specified null hypotheses and post-selection inference scenarios.

We study the problem of model selection among probabilistic forecasting models evaluated on datasets of multiple time series. The performance of a model on a single time series is quantified by the average value (score) of a proper scoring rule over a test set, but extending model selection to data sets of time series requires aggregating these scores. Common approaches either rely on scaling scores and averaging them (mean scaled score) or avoid scaling by using alternative statistics such as mean ranks or win rates. However, these approaches can yield conflicting conclusions. We show that such discrepancies arise from the skewness of the distribution of the scores, which is particularly pronounced when test sets are short. The skewness can cause non-mean criteria (e.g., mean rank, median, win rate) to select misspecified models. In contrast, the mean score is immune from this problem. We further show that, as the size of the test sets increases, all aggregation criteria converge to the same model selection decision, mitigating these discrepancies. Our experiments on intermittent demand time series, including data from the M5 competition, highlight the importance of sufficiently large test sets; the mean scaled score appears to be the more reliable approach, also because empirically we found its decision to remain consistent when different scaling factors are adopted.

We study the problem of causal structure learning from a combination of observational and interventional data generated by a linear non-Gaussian structural equation model that might contain cycles. Recent results show that using mere observational data identifies the causal graph only up to a permutation-equivalence class. We obtain a combinatorial characterization of this class by showing that each graph in an equivalence class corresponds to a perfect matching in a bipartite graph. This bipartite representation allows us to analyze how interventions modify or constrain the matchings. Specifically, we show that each atomic intervention reveals one edge of the true matching and eliminates all incompatible causal graphs. Consequently, we formalize the optimal experiment design task as an adaptive stochastic optimization problem over the set of equivalence classes with a natural reward function that quantifies how many graphs are eliminated from the equivalence class by an intervention.

State Space Models (SSMs) have emerged as promising alternatives to attention mechanisms, with the Mamba architecture demonstrating impressive performance and linear complexity for processing long sequences. However, the fundamental differences between Mamba and Transformer architectures remain incompletely understood. In this work, we use carefully designed synthetic tasks to reveal Mamba's inherent limitations. Through experiments, we identify that Mamba's nonlinear convolution introduces an asymmetry bias that significantly impairs its ability to recognize symmetrical patterns and relationships. Using composite function and inverse sequence matching tasks, we demonstrate that Mamba strongly favors compositional solutions over symmetrical ones and struggles with tasks requiring the matching of reversed sequences. We show these limitations stem not from the SSM module itself but from the nonlinear convolution preceding it, which fuses token information asymmetrically. These insights provide a new understanding of Mamba's constraints and suggest concrete architectural improvements for future sequence models.

Intracranial recordings have opened a unique opportunity to simultaneously measure activity across multiregional networks in the human brain. Recent works have focused on developing transformer-based neurofoundation models of such recordings that can generalize across subjects and datasets.

Predictions and generations from large language models are increasingly being explored as an aid in limited data regimes, such as in computational social science and human subjects research. While prior technical work has mainly explored the potential to use model-predicted labels for unlabeled data in a principled manner, there is increasing interest in using large language models to generate entirely new synthetic samples (e.g., synthetic simulations), such as in responses to surveys. However, it remains unclear by what means practitioners can combine such data with real data and yet produce statistically valid conclusions upon them. In this paper, we introduce a new estimator based on generalized method of moments, providing a hyperparameter-free solution with strong theoretical guarantees to address this challenge. Intriguingly, we find that interactions between the moment residuals of synthetic data and those of real data (i.e., when they are predictive of each other) can greatly improve estimates of the target parameter.

We revisit scene-level 3D object detection as the output of an object-centric framework capable of both localization and mapping using 3D oriented boxes as the underlying geometric primitive. While existing 3D object detection approaches operate globally and implicitly rely on the a priori existence of metric camera poses, our method, Rooms from Motion (RfM) operates on a collection of un-posed images. By replacing the standard 2D keypoint-based matcher of structure-frommotion with an object-centric matcher based on image-derived 3D boxes, we estimate metric camera poses, object tracks, and finally produce a global, semantic 3D object map. When a priori pose is available, we can significantly improve map quality through optimization of global 3D boxes against individual observations. RfM shows strong localization performance and subsequently produces maps of higher quality than leading point-based and multi-view 3D object detection methods on CA-1M and ScanNet++, despite these global methods relying on overparameterization through point clouds or dense volumes. Rooms from Motion achieves an object-centric representation which allows for inherently sparse localization and parametric mapping proportional to the number of objects in a scene.

We consider matroid allocation problems under opportunity fairness constraints: resources need to be allocated to a set of agents under matroid constraints (which include classical problems such as bipartite matching). Agents are divided into C groups according to a sensitive attribute, and an allocation is opportunity-fair if each group receives the same share proportional to the maximum feasible allocation it could achieve in isolation. We study the Price of Fairness (PoF), i.e., the ratio between maximum size allocations and maximum size opportunity-fair allocations. We first provide a characterization of the PoF leveraging the underlying polymatroid structure of the allocation problem. Based on this characterization, we prove bounds on the PoF in various settings from fully adversarial (worst-case) to fully random. Notably, one of our main results considers an arbitrary matroid structure with agents randomly divided into groups. In this setting, we prove a PoF bound as a function of the (relative) size of the largest group. Our result implies that, as long as there is no dominant group (i.e., the largest group is not too large), opportunity fairness constraints do not induce any loss of social welfare (defined as the allocation size). Overall, our results give insights into which aspects of the problem's structure affect the trade-off between opportunity fairness and social welfare.

Recent advancements in offline reinforcement learning (RL) have underscored the capabilities of conditional sequence modeling (CSM), a paradigm that models the action distribution conditioned on both historical trajectories and target returns associated with each state. However, due to the imbalanced return distribution caused by suboptimal datasets, CSM is grappling with a serious distributional shift problem when conditioning on high returns. While recent approaches attempt to empirically tackle this challenge through return rebalancing techniques such as weighted sampling and value-regularized supervision, the relationship between return rebalancing and the performance of CSM methods is not well understood. In this paper, we reveal that both expert-level and full-spectrum return-coverage critically influence the performance and sample efficiency of CSM policies. Building on this finding, we devise a simple yet effective return-coverage rebalancing mechanism that can be seamlessly integrated into common CSM frameworks, including the most widely used one, Decision Transformer (DT). The resulting CSM algorithm, referred to as Return-rebalanced Value-regularized Decision Transformer (RVDT), integrates both implicit and explicit return-coverage rebalancing mechanisms, and achieves state-of-the-art performance in the D4RL experiments.

Learning rules--prescriptions for updating model parameters to improve performance--are typically assumed rather than derived. Why do some learning rules work better than others, and under what assumptions can a given rule be considered optimal? We propose a theoretical framework that casts learning rules as policies for navigating (partially observable) loss landscapes, and identifies optimal rules as solutions to an associated optimal control problem. A range of well-known rules emerge naturally within this framework under different assumptions: gradient descent from short-horizon optimization, momentum from longer-horizon planning, natural gradients from accounting for parameter space geometry, non-gradient rules from partial controllability, and adaptive optimizers like Adam from online Bayesian inference of loss landscape shape. We further show that continual learning strategies like weight resetting can be understood as optimal responses to task uncertainty. By unifying these phenomena under a single objective, our framework clarifies the computational structure of learning and offers a principled foundation for designing adaptive algorithms.