Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with machine learning has attracted substantial attention in both academic research and industrial practice. However, the two communities often evaluate models under markedly different conditions. Methodological work typically relies on semi-simulated benchmarks and metrics that require counterfactual outcomes, whereas real-world applications rely on observable metrics based on ranking or test outcomes. Despite the well-known gap between methodological progress and practical deployment, the relationship between these evaluation regimes has not been examined systematically. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of treatment effect evaluation across standard semi-simulated benchmark families and real-world datasets. Our benchmark covers meta-learners paired with multiple base learners, as well as specialized causal machine learning models. We evaluate these methods using observable metrics common in application-oriented literature, alongside counterfactual metrics commonly used in methods papers. Our results reveal two complementary gaps. First, counterfactual metrics do not reliably recover the estimators preferred by observable metrics, even on the same semi-simulated benchmarks. Second, rankings obtained on semi-simulated benchmarks do not transfer to real datasets. We further find that simple meta-learners with strong base models are consistently competitive, in contrast to specialized causal models. Overall, our findings suggest that progress in treatment effect estimation research should not be assessed solely through counterfactual metrics and semi-simulated benchmarks, but it would benefit from incorporating observable metrics and real-data validation.

By inferring latent groups in the training data, recent works introduce invariant learning to the case where environment annotations are unavailable. Typically, learning group invariance under a majority/minority split is empirically shown to be effective in improving out-of-distribution generalization on many datasets. However, theoretical guarantee for these methods on learning invariant mechanisms is lacking. In this paper, we reveal the insufficiency of existing group invariant learning methods in preventing classifiers from depending on spurious correlations in the training set. Specifically, we propose two criteria on judging such sufficiency. Theoretically and empirically, we show that existing methods can violate both criteria and thus fail in generalizing to spurious correlation shifts. Motivated by this, we design a new group invariant learning method, which constructs groups with statistical independence tests, and reweights samples by group label proportion to meet the criteria. Experiments on both synthetic and real data demonstrate that the new method significantly outperforms existing group invariant learning methods in generalizing to spurious correlation shifts1.

The scenario approach provides a powerful data-driven framework for designing solutions under uncertainty with rigorous probabilistic robustness guarantees. Existing theory, however, primarily addresses assessing robustness with respect to a single appropriateness criterion for the solution based on a dataset, whereas many practical applications - including multi-agent decision problems - require the simultaneous consideration of multiple criteria and the assessment of their robustness based on multiple datasets, one per criterion. This paper develops a general scenario theory for multi-criteria data-driven decision making. A central innovation lies in the collective treatment of the risks associated with violations of individual criteria, which yields substantially more accurate robustness certificates than those derived from a naive application of standard results. In turn, this approach enables a sharper quantification of the robustness level with which all criteria are simultaneously satisfied. The proposed framework applies broadly to multi-criteria data-driven decision problems, providing a principled, scalable, and theoretically grounded methodology for design under uncertainty.

We study rank selection for low-rank tensor regression under random covariates design. Under a Gaussian random-design model and some mild conditions, we derive population expressions for the expected training-testing discrepancy (optimism) for both CP and Tucker decomposition. We further demonstrate that the optimism is minimized at the true tensor rank for both CP and Tucker regression. This yields a prediction-oriented rank-selection rule that aligns with cross-validation and extends naturally to tensor-model averaging. We also discuss conditions under which under- or over-ranked models may appear preferable, thereby clarifying the scope of the method. Finally, we showcase its practical utility on a real-world image regression task and extend its application to tensor-based compression of neural network, highlighting its potential for model selection in deep learning.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate surprising capabilities, but we do not understand how they are implemented. One hypothesis suggests that these capabilities are primarily executed by small subnetworks within the LLM, known as circuits. But how can we evaluate this hypothesis?In this paper, we formalize a set of criteria that a circuit is hypothesized to meet and develop a suite of hypothesis tests to evaluate how well circuits satisfy them. The criteria focus on the extent to which the LLM's behavior is preserved, the degree of localization of this behavior, and whether the circuit is minimal.We apply these tests to six circuits described in the research literature. We find that synthetic circuits -- circuits that are hard-coded in the model -- align with the idealized properties. Circuits discovered in Transformer models satisfy the criteria to varying degrees.To facilitate future empirical studies of circuits, we created the \textit{circuitry} package, a wrapper around the \textit{TransformerLens} library, which abstracts away lower-level manipulations of hooks and activations.

We present a novel algorithm that efficiently computes near-optimal deterministic policies for constrained reinforcement learning (CRL) problems. Our approach combines three key ideas: (1) value-demand augmentation, (2) action-space approximate dynamic programming, and (3) time-space rounding. Our algorithm constitutes a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) for any time-space recursive (TSR) cost criteria. A TSR criteria requires the cost of a policy to be computable recursively over both time and (state) space, which includes classical expectation, almost sure, and anytime constraints. Our work answers three open questions spanning two long-standing lines of research: polynomial-time approximability is possible for 1) anytime-constrained policies, 2) almost-sure-constrained policies, and 3) deterministic expectation-constrained policies.

As society increasingly relies on AI-based tools for decision-making in socially sensitive domains, investigating fairness and equity of such automated systems has become a critical field of inquiry. Most of the literature in fair machine learning focuses on defining and achieving fairness criteria in the context of prediction, while not explicitly focusing on how these predictions may be used later on in the pipeline. For instance, if commonly used criteria, such as independence or sufficiency, are satisfied for a prediction score $S$ used for binary classification, they need not be satisfied after an application of a simple thresholding operation on $S$ (as commonly used in practice). In this paper, we take an important step to address this issue in numerous statistical and causal notions of fairness. We introduce the notion of a margin complement, which measures how much a prediction score $S$ changes due to a thresholding operation.We then demonstrate that the marginal difference in the optimal 0/1 predictor $\widehat Y$ between groups, written $P(\hat y \mid x_1) - P(\hat y \mid x_0)$, can be causally decomposed into the influences of $X$ on the $L_2$-optimal prediction score $S$ and the influences of $X$ on the margin complement $M$, along different causal pathways (direct, indirect, spurious). We then show that under suitable causal assumptions, the influences of $X$ on the prediction score $S$ are equal to the influences of $X$ on the true outcome $Y$. This yields a new decomposition of the disparity in the predictor $\widehat Y$ that allows us to disentangle causal differences inherited from the true outcome $Y$ that exists in the real world vs. those coming from the optimization procedure itself. This observation highlights the need for more regulatory oversight due to the potential for bias amplification, and to address this issue we introduce new notions of weak and strong business necessity, together with an algorithm for assessing whether these notions are satisfied. We apply our method to three real-world datasets and derive new insights on bias amplification in prediction and decision-making.

Why can't language models write well? I n a certain, strange way, generative AI peaked with OpenAI's GPT-2 seven years ago. Little known to anyone outside of tech circles, GPT-2 excelled at producing unexpected answers. "You could be like, 'Continue this story:,' and GPT-2 would be like, ','" Katy Gero, a poet and computer scientist who has been experimenting with language models since 2017, told me. "The models won't do that anymore." AI leaders boast about their models' superhuman technical abilities.

With the increasing popularity of machine learning techniques, it has become common to see prediction algorithms operating within some larger process. However, the criteria by which we train these algorithms often differ from the ultimate criteria on which we evaluate them. This paper proposes an end-to-end approach for learning probabilistic machine learning models in a manner that directly captures the ultimate task-based objective for which they will be used, within the context of stochastic programming. We present three experimental evaluations of the proposed approach: a classical inventory stock problem, a real-world electrical grid scheduling task, and a real-world energy storage arbitrage task. We show that the proposed approach can outperform both traditional modeling and purely black-box policy optimization approaches in these applications.