Synthetic tabular data are often evaluated by distributional similarity, privacy distance, or train-on-synthetic-test-on-real predictive performance, but these criteria do not ensure validity for causal inference. We show that fully generative tabular synthesizers, including GAN- and LLM-based models, can preserve predictive utility while distorting average treatment effect (ATE) estimates. The failure is structural: ATE preservation requires both a realistic covariate law and an accurate treatment-effect contrast, whereas prediction loss penalizes treatment-effect error only through an overlap-weighted term. We formalize this mismatch through sensitivity and loss-decomposition results, and identify an analogous decomposition in block-level next-token prediction under log loss. Motivated by the tabular causal analysis, we propose a hybrid synthetic-data framework that generates covariates while modeling treatment and outcome mechanisms separately, allowing causal-purpose treatment assignment such as randomized synthetic assignment. We evaluate this framework in three settings: ATE preservation under fully generative versus hybrid synthesis, targeted augmentation for practical positivity problems, and synthetic simulation engines for comparing OR, IPW, AIPW, and TMLE before real-data analysis. Across synthetic and ACTG experiments, hybrid synthesis improves causal fidelity relative to fully generative baselines; LLM-based hybrid synthesis is often more faithful than CTGAN for ATE preservation and finite-sample estimator benchmarking.

As large language models (LLMs) transition from chat interfaces to integral components of stochastic pipelines and systems approaching general intelligence, the ability to faithfully sample from specified probability distributions has become a functional requirement rather than a theoretical curiosity. We present the first large-scale, statistically powered audit of native probabilistic sampling in frontier LLMs, benchmarking 11 models across 15 distributions. To disentangle failure modes, we employ a dual-protocol design: Batch Generation, where a model produces $N{=}1000$ samples within one response, and Independent Requests, comprising $N{=}1000$ stateless calls. We observe a sharp protocol asymmetry: batch generation achieves only modest statistical validity, with a 7% median pass rate, while independent requests collapse almost entirely, with 10 of 11 models passing none of the distributions. Beyond this asymmetry, we reveal that sampling fidelity degrades monotonically with distributional complexity and aggravates as the sampling horizon $N$ increases. Finally, we demonstrate how the propagation of these failures into downstream real-world application tasks introduces systematic biases: models fail to enforce uniform answer-position constraints in Multiple Choice Question generation and systematically violate demographic targets in attribute-constrained text-to-image prompt synthesis. These findings indicate that current LLMs lack a functional internal sampler, necessitating external tools for applications requiring statistical guarantees.

Knowledge distillation is a popular technique for training a small student network to emulate a larger teacher model, such as an ensemble of networks. We show that while knowledge distillation can improve student generalization, it does not typically work as it is commonly understood: there often remains a surprisingly large discrepancy between the predictive distributions of the teacher and the student, even in cases when the student has the capacity to perfectly match the teacher. We identify difficulties in optimization as a key reason for why the student is unable to match the teacher. We also show how the details of the dataset used for distillation play a role in how closely the student matches the teacher -- and that more closely matching the teacher paradoxically does not always lead to better student generalization.