Selection bias arises when the probability that an observation enters a dataset depends on variables related to the quantities of interest, leading to systematic distortions in estimation and uncertainty quantification. For example, in epidemiological or survey settings, individuals with certain outcomes may be more likely to be included, resulting in biased prevalence estimates with potentially substantial downstream impact. Classical corrections, such as inverse-probability weighting or explicit likelihood-based models of the selection process, rely on tractable likelihoods, which limits their applicability in complex stochastic models with latent dynamics or high-dimensional structure. Simulation-based inference enables Bayesian analysis without tractable likelihoods but typically assumes missingness at random and thus fails when selection depends on unobserved outcomes or covariates. Here, we develop a bias-aware simulation-based inference framework that explicitly incorporates selection into neural posterior estimation. By embedding the selection mechanism directly into the generative simulator, the approach enables amortized Bayesian inference without requiring tractable likelihoods. This recasting of selection bias as part of the simulation process allows us to both obtain debiased estimates and explicitly test for the presence of bias. The framework integrates diagnostics to detect discrepancies between simulated and observed data and to assess posterior calibration. The method recovers well-calibrated posterior distributions across three statistical applications with diverse selection mechanisms, including settings in which likelihood-based approaches yield biased estimates. These results recast the correction of selection bias as a simulation problem and establish simulation-based inference as a practical and testable strategy for parameter estimation under selection bias.

We study the problem of estimating the effect function for a continuous treatment, which maps each treatment value to a population-averaged outcome. A central challenge in this setting is confounding: treatment assignment often depends on covariates, creating selection bias that makes direct regression of the response on treatment unreliable. To address this issue, we propose a two-stage kernel ridge regression method. In the first stage, we learn a model for the response as a function of both treatment and covariates; in the second stage, we use this model to construct pseudo-outcomes that correct for distribution shift, and then fit a second model to estimate the treatment effect. Although the response varies with both treatment and covariates, the induced effect function obtained by averaging over covariates is typically much simpler, and our estimator adapts to this structure. Furthermore, we introduce a fully data-driven model selection procedure that achieves provable adaptivity to both the unknown degree of overlap and the regularity (eigenvalue decay) of the underlying kernel.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects in survival settings is complicated by right censoring as well as the time-varying nature of the estimand. While the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) provides a natural target, most existing approaches focus on a single prespecified time point and do not account for the temporal trajectory, leading to instability in estimation. We propose a deep survival learner (DSL) for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with right-censored outcomes. The method is based on a doubly robust pseudo-outcome whose conditional expectation identifies time-specific CATEs under standard assumptions. This construction remains unbiased if either the outcome model or the treatment assignment model is correctly specified, when properly accounting for censoring. To estimate CATEs over a clinically relevant time spectrum, DSL employs a multi-output deep neural network with shared representations, enabling joint estimation of treatment effect trajectories. From a theoretical perspective, we derive error bounds for both pointwise and joint estimation over time. We show that joint estimation can leverage temporal structure to control estimation error without incurring much additional approximation cost under smoothness conditions, leading to improved stability relative to separate estimation. Cross-fitting is incorporated to reduce overfitting and mitigate bias arising from flexible nuisance estimation. Simulation studies demonstrate favorable finite-sample performance, particularly under nuisance model misspecification. Applied to the Boston Lung Cancer Study, DSL reveals heterogeneity in the effects of perioperative chemotherapy across patient characteristics and over time.

Generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) are widely used to analyze grouped and hierarchical data. In a GLMM, each response is assumed to follow an exponential-family distribution where the natural parameter is given by a linear function of observed covariates and a latent group-specific random effect. Since exact marginalization over the random effects is typically intractable, model parameters are estimated by maximizing an approximate marginal likelihood. In this paper, we replace the linear function with neural networks. The result is a more flexible model, the neural generalized mixed-effects model (NGMM), which captures complex relationships between covariates and responses. To fit NGMM to data, we introduce an efficient optimization procedure that maximizes the approximate marginal likelihood and is differentiable with respect to network parameters. We show that the approximation error of our objective decays at a Gaussian-tail rate in a user-chosen parameter. On synthetic data, NGMM improves over GLMMs when covariate-response relationships are nonlinear, and on real-world datasets it outperforms prior methods. Finally, we analyze a large dataset of student proficiency to demonstrate how NGMM can be extended to more complex latent-variable models.

In many modern applications, a carefully designed primary study provides individual-level data for interpretable modeling, while summary-level external information is available through black-box, efficient, and nonparametric machine-learning predictions. Although summary-level external information has been studied in the data integration literature, there is limited methodology for leveraging external nonparametric machine-learning predictions to improve statistical inference in the primary study. We propose a general empirical-likelihood framework that incorporates external predictions through moment constraints. An advantage of nonparametric machine-learning prediction is that it induces a rich class of valid moment restrictions that remain robust to covariate shift under a mild overlap condition without requiring explicit density-ratio modeling. We focus on multinomial logistic regression as the primary model and address common data-quality issues in external sources, including coarsened outcomes, partially observed covariates, covariate shift, and heterogeneity in generating mechanisms known as concept shift. We establish large-sample properties of the resulting fused estimator, including consistency and asymptotic normality under regularity conditions. Moreover, we provide mild sufficient conditions under which incorporating external predictions delivers a strict efficiency gain relative to the primary-only estimator. Simulation studies and an application to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey on multiclass blood-pressure classification.

We study robust regression under a contamination model in which covariates are clean while the responses may be corrupted in an adaptive manner. Unlike the classical Huber's contamination model, where both covariates and responses may be contaminated and consistent estimation is impossible when the contamination proportion is a non-vanishing constant, it turns out that the clean-covariate setting admits strictly improved statistical guarantees. Specifically, we show that the additional information in the clean covariates can be carefully exploited to construct an estimator that achieves a better estimation rate than that attainable under Huber contamination. In contrast to the Huber model, this improved rate implies consistency even when the contamination is a constant. A matching minimax lower bound is established using Fano's inequality together with the construction of contamination processes that match $m> 2$ distributions simultaneously, extending the previous two-point lower bound argument in Huber's setting. Despite the improvement over the Huber model from an information-theoretic perspective, we provide formal evidence -- in the form of Statistical Query and Low-Degree Polynomial lower bounds -- that the problem exhibits strong information-computation gaps. Our results strongly suggest that the information-theoretic improvements cannot be achieved by polynomial-time algorithms, revealing a fundamental gap between information-theoretic and computational limits in robust regression with clean covariates.

Estimating optimal individualized treatment rules (ITRs) via outcome weighted learning (OWL) often relies on observed rewards that are noisy or optimistic proxies for the true latent utility. Ignoring this reward uncertainty leads to the selection of policies with inflated apparent performance, yet existing OWL frameworks lack the finite-sample guarantees required to systematically embed such uncertainty into the learning objective. To address this issue, we propose PAC-Bayesian Reward-Certified Outcome Weighted Learning (PROWL). Given a one-sided uncertainty certificate, PROWL constructs a conservative reward and a strictly policy-dependent lower bound on the true expected value. Theoretically, we prove an exact certified reduction that transforms robust policy learning into a unified, split-free cost-sensitive classification task. This formulation enables the derivation of a nonasymptotic PAC-Bayes lower bound for randomized ITRs, where we establish that the optimal posterior maximizing this bound is exactly characterized by a general Bayes update. To overcome the learning-rate selection problem inherent in generalized Bayesian inference, we introduce a fully automated, bounds-based calibration procedure, coupled with a Fisher-consistent certified hinge surrogate for efficient optimization. Our experiments demonstrate that PROWL achieves improvements in estimating robust, high-value treatment regimes under severe reward uncertainty compared to standard methods for ITR estimation.

Scientists often want to explain why an outcome is different in two groups. For instance, differences in patient mortality rates across two hospitals could be due to differences in the patients themselves (covariates) or differences in medical care (outcomes given covariates). The Oaxaca--Blinder decomposition (OBD) is a standard tool to tease apart these factors. It is well known that the OBD requires choosing one of the groups as a reference, and the numerical answer can vary with the reference. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been a systematic investigation into whether the choice of OBD reference can yield different substantive conclusions and how common this issue is. In the present paper, we give existence proofs in real and simulated data that the OBD references can yield substantively different conclusions and that these differences are not entirely driven by model misspecification or small data. We prove that substantively different conclusions occur in up to half of the parameter space, but find these discrepancies rare in the real-data analyses we study. We explain this empirical rarity by examining how realistic data-generating processes can be biased towards parameters that do not change conclusions under the OBD.

Retrospective causal questions ask what would have happened to an observed individual had they received a different treatment. We study the problem of estimating $μ(x,y)=\mathbb{E}[Y(1)\mid X=x,Y(0)=y]$, the expected counterfactual outcome for an individual with covariates $x$ and observed outcome $y$, and constructing valid prediction intervals under the Neyman-Rubin superpopulation model. This quantity is generally not identified without additional assumptions. To link the observed and unobserved potential outcomes, we work with a cross-world correlation $ρ(x)=cor(Y(1),Y(0)\mid X=x)$; plausible bounds on $ρ(x)$ enable a principled approach to this otherwise unidentified problem. We introduce retrospective counterfactual estimators $\hatμ_ρ(x,y)$ and prediction intervals $C_ρ(x,y)$ that asymptotically satisfy $P[Y(1)\in C_ρ(x,y)\mid X=x, Y(0)=y]\ge1-α$ under standard causal assumptions. Many common baselines implicitly correspond to endpoint choices $ρ=0$ or $ρ=1$ (ignoring the factual outcome or treating the counterfactual as a shifted factual outcome). Interpolating between these cases through cross-world dependence yields substantial gains in both theory and practice.

In recent years, there has been growing interest in causal machine learning estimators for quantifying subject-specific effects of a binary treatment on time-to-event outcomes. Estimation approaches have been proposed which attenuate the inherent regularisation bias in machine learning predictions, with each of these estimators addressing measured confounding, right censoring, and in some cases, left truncation. However, the existing approaches are found to exhibit suboptimal finite-sample performance, with none of the existing estimators fully leveraging the temporal structure of the data, yielding non-smooth treatment effects over time. We address these limitations by introducing surv-iTMLE, a targeted learning procedure for estimating the difference in the conditional survival probabilities under two treatments. Unlike existing estimators, surv-iTMLE accommodates both left truncation and right censoring while enforcing smoothness and boundedness of the estimated treatment effect curve over time. Through extensive simulation studies under both right censoring and left truncation scenarios, we demonstrate that surv-iTMLE outperforms existing methods in terms of bias and smoothness of time-varying effect estimates in finite samples. We then illustrate surv-iTMLE's practical utility by exploring heterogeneity in the effects of immunotherapy on survival among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, revealing clinically meaningful temporal patterns that existing estimators may obscure.