We introduce a comprehensive framework for modeling single cell transcriptomic responses to perturbations, aimed at standardizing benchmarking in this rapidly evolving field. Our approach includes a modular and user-friendly model development and evaluation platform, a collection of diverse perturbational datasets, and a set of metrics designed to fairly compare models and dissect their performance. Through extensive evaluation of both published and baseline models across diverse datasets, we highlight the limitations of widely used models, such as mode collapse. We also demonstrate the importance of rank metrics which complement traditional model fit measures, such as RMSE, for validating model effectiveness. Notably, our results show that while no single model architecture clearly outperforms others, simpler architectures are generally competitive and scale well with larger datasets. Overall, this benchmarking exercise sets new standards for model evaluation, supports robust model development, and furthers the use of these models to simulate genetic and chemical screens for therapeutic discovery.

Causal inference is essential for developing and evaluating medical interventions, yet real-world medical datasets are often difficult to access due to regulatory barriers. This makes synthetic data a potentially valuable asset that enables these medical analyses, along with the development of new inference methods themselves. Generative models can produce synthetic data that closely approximate real data distributions, yet existing methods do not consider the unique challenges that downstream causal inference tasks, and specifically those focused on treatments, pose. We establish a set of desiderata that synthetic data containing treatments should satisfy to maximise downstream utility: preservation of (i) the covariate distribution, (ii) the treatment assignment mechanism, and (iii) the outcome generation mechanism. Based on these desiderata, we propose a set of evaluation metrics to assess such synthetic data. Finally, we present STEAM: a novel method for generating Synthetic data for Treatment Effect Analysis in Medicine that mimics the data-generating process of data containing treatments and optimises for our desiderata. We empirically demonstrate that STEAM achieves state-of-the-art performance across our metrics as compared to existing generative models, particularly as the complexity of the true data-generating process increases.

Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale, but their assessments often diverge systematically from human judgments.

Understanding how animals learn is a central challenge in neuroscience, with growing relevance to the development of animal-or human-aligned artificial intelligence. However, existing approaches tend to assume fixed parametric forms for the learning rule (e.g., Q-learning, policy gradient), which may not accurately describe the complex forms of learning employed by animals in realistic settings. Here we address this gap by developing a framework to infer learning rules directly from behavioral data collected during task learning. We assume that animals follow a decision policy parameterized by a generalized linear model (GLM), and we model their learning rule--the mapping from task covariates to per-trial weight updates--using a deep neural network (DNN). This formulation allows flexible, data-driven inference of learning rules while maintaining an interpretable form of the decision policy itself.

Understanding the effects of interventions is central to scientific progress, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarded as the gold standard for causal inference in many applied fields. However, RCTs are costly, time-consuming, and often constrained by ethical or practical limitations, motivating the need for causal methods able to draw conclusions from observational data. While such data is collected at ever larger scale, making its use for causal inference is often hindered by the fact that not all variables affecting treatment allocation and the outcome are observed - an issue known as unobserved confounding. In this paper, we introduce a new study design called confounder detection via treatment intent. The idea is to query a human expert who makes treatment decisions, and ask them to compare pairs of units proposed by a principled matching strategy, with the goal of eliciting unobserved variables that explain why treatment decisions differ. We provide a theoretical basis for such a procedure, ascertaining conditions under which such a study design may elicit unobserved confounders. Building on this newly established foundations, we study treatment effects of interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU). First, we show empirical evidence strongly indicating that electronic health records (EHRs) collected in ICUs are subject to unobserved confounding. By using clinical text notes as a proxy for physicians' knowledge and leveraging natural language processing, we provide a proof of concept for our methodology in a semi-synthetic environment with a known ground truth.

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.

In the era of precision medicine, genome-wide epigenetic modifications offer rich data that could inform risk prediction. However, these data are high-dimensional and exhibit complex dependence structures, which makes it difficult to jointly model them with low-dimensional covariates when the goal is to obtain interpretable effect estimates for covariate adjustment. Standard Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) provide strong predictive performance but treat all predictors uniformly within the tree ensemble, obscuring the contributions of significant covariates and complicating variable selection in high-dimensional settings. We propose a semi-parametric BART model (spBART) that addresses this limitation by modeling low-dimensional covariates through a parametric component with interpretable coefficients, while capturing complex nonlinear associations among high-dimensional predictors through the tree ensemble. To perform stable variable selection, we develop a cross-validation-based procedure that aggregates posterior inclusion probabilities across folds and applies Bayesian false discovery rate control. We apply the proposed method to a pooled case--control analysis of high-dimensional genome-wide 5-hydroxymethylcytosine profiles derived from circulating cell-free DNA in two multiple myeloma studies ($N = 869$). The approach identifies a parsimonious set of candidate loci and achieves strong out-of-sample discrimination (AUC $= 0.96$) in a held-out validation set. Overall, spBART provides a unified framework for combining interpretable covariate inference with flexible modeling and variable selection in high-dimensional biomedical studies.

Automated systems built on artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly deployed across high-stakes domains, raising critical concerns about fairness and the perpetuation of demographic disparities that exist in the world. In this context, causal inference provides a principled framework for reasoning about fairness, as it links observed disparities to underlying mechanisms and aligns naturally with human intuition and legal notions of discrimination. Prior work on causal fairness primarily focuses on the standard machine learning setting, where a decision-maker constructs a single predictive mechanism $f_{\widehat Y}$ for an outcome variable $Y$, while inheriting the causal mechanisms of all other covariates from the real world. The generative AI setting, however, is markedly more complex: generative models can sample from arbitrary conditionals over any set of variables, implicitly constructing their own beliefs about all causal mechanisms rather than learning a single predictive function. This fundamental difference requires new developments in causal fairness methodology. We formalize the problem of causal fairness in generative AI and unify it with the standard ML setting under a common theoretical framework. We then derive new causal decomposition results that enable granular quantification of fairness impacts along both (a) different causal pathways and (b) the replacement of real-world mechanisms by the generative model's mechanisms. We establish identification conditions and introduce efficient estimators for causal quantities of interest, and demonstrate the value of our methodology by analyzing race and gender bias in large language models across different datasets.

Decision-makers frequently must choose a single action from a finite set of alternatives -- for example, physicians selecting a treatment, investors choosing a portfolio risk level, or judges determining sentences. To improve outcomes, policymakers often issue policy rules or guidelines to inform such choices. In this paper, I show how to generally derive policy rules from observational data in a multi-action framework under relatively weak assumptions about the underlying structure of the heterogeneous sampled population. Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) are consistently estimated via a weighted K-means algorithm, assuming the outcome model is correctly specified within each homogeneous subgroup. Feasible policy rules are then implemented via a standard decision tree, allowing for both perfect and imperfect adherence to treatment. The methodology is applied to treatment options for Hepatitis C (HCV) among patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a setting in which no uniform guideline exists for modern pharmaceutical therapies. The results identify a subgroup of patients with approximately an 80% probability of spontaneous HCV clearance without treatment. Estimation results also show that reallocating treatments among treated individuals could have reduced total treatment costs by CAN$3.6-4.9 million while still increasing aggregate health benefits relative to the status quo. These findings demonstrate that the proposed approach can generate improved, data-driven treatment guidelines for the management of HIV/HCV co-infected patients.

We consider the following two-player game: using observational data, the leader chooses a prediction function for a response variable $Y$ from given covariates. The follower then reacts with an intervention on some covariates in the underlying structural causal model to maximize their own objective. The leader knows the intervention targets, but may have limited knowledge of the follower's objective. We call this setup a prediction-intervention game, a special case of a Stackelberg game. Finding an optimal strategy for the leader is generally difficult. To avoid severe performance loss, the leader may base their prediction on the causal parents of $Y$, or more generally on an invariant subset of covariates. We prove, for two common classes of follower objectives, that predictors based on the stable blanket, a specific invariant subset, are always better or as good as those based on the causal parents. We further upper bound the leader's post-intervention risk by a worst-case risk over allowed interventions and strengthen existing distribution generalization results to analyze this bound: we give sufficient conditions under which stable-blanket predictors are worst-case optimal, and show by examples that these conditions cannot in general be dropped. Finally, we discuss practical strategies for settings with known and unknown graph, and test them on simulated and real-world data.