Traditional insurance pricing relies on risk-based principles that ensure actuarial fairness and solvency but do not explicitly account for policyholders' price sensitivity. We formulate insurance pricing as a decision-making problem and study it using tools from off-policy evaluation and stochastic control. We propose a kernelized inverse propensity score estimator that exploits local structure in the action space and yields variance reduction compared to the classical inverse propensity score estimator. Building on these value estimates, we investigate policy optimization and present two practical approaches for computing optimal pricing rules: an interpretable data-shared Lasso formulation and a flexible policy parameterization based on neural networks. Using a controlled synthetic travel insurance environment, we empirically confirm the theoretical results and show that neural networks outperform existing techniques for policy optimization.

Single-arm trials are an important study design for evaluating drug efficacy and safety without enrolling patients into a control arm. Although they do not provide the gold-standard evidence of randomized controlled trials, they are increasingly used in clinical development as they offer an efficient, ethical, and practical alternative. A wide variety of approaches can be used to construct control comparators and estimate treatment effects, from fixed comparators informed by clinical knowledge to data-based and model-based patient-level comparators, also known as synthetic controls. Powerful and flexible machine learning models can allow outcome-model-based synthetic controls to overcome key limitations of direct data-based approaches, yield more robust estimates of treatment effects, and provide a principled way to incorporate corrections or encode additional assumptions when external data are not directly comparable. In this work, we argue that outcome-model-based synthetic control arms are an important tool for single-arm trials. We focus on digital twins, personalized predictions of disease progression generated from machine learning models trained on historical datasets, which naturally leverage these flexible approaches. We review doubly robust estimators, present power and sample size formulas, and discuss trade-offs in selecting historical data for training and analysis. We also outline practical considerations for deploying digital twins within the framework of recent FDA draft guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in drug development. Finally, we reanalyze data from trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington's disease to demonstrate the proposed methods.

Treatment allocation under budget constraints is a central challenge in digital advertising: advertisers must decide which users to show ads to while spending a limited budget wisely. The standard approach follows a two-stage offline pipeline - first collect historical data to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE), then solve a constrained optimization to allocate the budget. This works well with abundant data, but fails in cold-start settings such as new campaigns, new markets, or new customer segments where little historical data exists. We propose Budget-Constrained Causal Bandits (BCCB), an online framework that learns which users respond to ads while simultaneously spending the budget, making treatment decisions one user at a time. BCCB unifies three components into a single sequential process: learning individual-level ad effectiveness, exploring users whose response is uncertain, and pacing the budget over time. We evaluated on the Criteo Uplift dataset, a large-scale advertising dataset from a real randomized controlled trial. Our key finding is a data-efficiency crossover: offline methods require approximately 10,000 historical observations to produce reliable results, while BCCB operates effectively from the very first user. Furthermore, BCCB exhibits 3-5x lower performance variance between runs, making it more practical for real campaign planning. Among purely online methods, BCCB consistently outperforms standard Thompson Sampling, budgeted Thompson Sampling, and greedy HTE estimation across all budget levels tested.

Converting betting odds into accurate outcome probabilities is a fundamental challenge in order to use betting odds as a benchmark for sports forecasting and market efficiency analysis. In this study, we propose two methods to overcome the limitations of existing conversion methods. Firstly, we propose an odds-only method to convert betting odds to probabilities without using historical data for model fitting. While existing odds-only methods, such as Multiplicative, Shin, and Power exist, they do not adjust for biases or relationships we found in our betting odds dataset, which consists of 90014 football matches across five different bookmakers. To overcome these limitations, our proposed Odds-Only-Equal-Profitability-Confidence (OO-EPC) method aligns with the bookmakers' pricing objectives of having equal confidence in profitability for each outcome. We provide empirical evidence from our betting odds dataset that, for the majority of bookmakers, our proposed OO-EPC method outperforms the existing odds-only methods. Beyond controlled experiments, we applied the OO-EPC method under real-world uncertainty by using it for six iterations of an annual basketball outcome forecasting competition. Secondly, we propose a generalised linear model that utilises historical data for model fitting and then converts betting odds to probabilities. Existing generalised linear models attempt to capture relationships that the Efficient Market Hypothesis already captures. To overcome this shortcoming, our proposed Favourite-Longshot-Bias-Adjusted Generalised Linear Model (FL-GLM) fits just one parameter to capture the favourite-longshot bias, providing a more interpretable alternative. We provide empirical evidence from historical football matches where, for all bookmakers, our proposed FL-GLM outperforms the existing multinomial and logistic generalised linear models.

Gaussian processes (GPs) are powerful and widely used probabilistic regression models, but their effectiveness in practice is often limited by the choice of kernel function. This kernel function is typically handcrafted from a small set of standard functions, a process that requires expert knowledge, results in limited adaptivity to data, and imposes strong assumptions on the hypothesis space. We study Empirical GPs, a principled framework for constructing flexible, data-driven GP priors that overcome these limitations. Rather than relying on standard parametric kernels, we estimate the mean and covariance functions empirically from a corpus of historical observations, enabling the prior to reflect rich, non-trivial covariance structures present in the data. Theoretically, we show that the resulting model converges to the GP that is closest (in KL-divergence sense) to the real data generating process. Practically, we formulate the problem of learning the GP prior from independent datasets as likelihood estimation and derive an Expectation-Maximization algorithm with closed-form updates, allowing the model handle heterogeneous observation locations across datasets. We demonstrate that Empirical GPs achieve competitive performance on learning curve extrapolation and time series forecasting benchmarks.