Pairwise human-preference platforms such as Chatbot Arena have become central to large language model (LLM) evaluation, yet reliable task-specific ranking remains challenging. Global leaderboards mask task heterogeneity, while ranking each fine-grained task independently is unstable under sparse, imbalanced comparisons. We propose a low-rank framework for task-specific LLM ranking from sparse pairwise comparisons, modeling the task-by-model ability matrix $Θ^\star \in \mathbb{R}^{d_t \times d_m}$ as low rank so that information is shared across related tasks while task-specific differences are preserved. We first develop a max-norm ($\ell_\infty$) accurate estimator for the latent scores, combining a convex initializer with alternating-minimization refinement, and prove task-wise top-$K$ recovery guarantees under sparse sampling. Our main contribution is an uncertainty quantification framework for task-specific ranking. We construct cross-fitted one-step debiased estimators for fixed score contrasts -- such as the task-specific ability gap between two models -- yielding asymptotically valid confidence intervals that attain the semiparametric efficiency bound. We then extend the inference to the high-dimensional ranking regime, where per-task ranks and top-$K$ membership are determined by many dependent score-gap hypotheses. Using Gaussian and multiplier-bootstrap calibration, we obtain simultaneous confidence sets for per-task ranks and valid top-$K$ membership tests across many tasks and models. Experiments on synthetic data and Chatbot Arena show that low-rank sharing improves sample efficiency over independent task-wise Bradley-Terry estimation and produces tighter, better-calibrated ranking certificates, with the largest gains in the sparse regime typical of real LLM benchmarks.

Many applications require statistically valid inference across many related "tasks", while using only a handful of high-quality labels per hypothesis. In AI evaluation, these tasks may correspond to model behaviors across prompts, subgroups, or hypotheses; in social science surveys, they may correspond to related questions, populations, or measurement conditions. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) uses abundant but inexpensive proxy measurements to improve inference from limited, "ground-truth" labels, but commonly used methods treat tasks independently and therefore fail to exploit shared structure across related tasks. This limitation is especially important in settings where only a small number of labels are available per task. To address this issue, we introduce a multi-task prediction-powered inference framework that uses labeled data from related tasks to improve power while preserving task-specific inference. Our methods exploit the shared structure in the proxy-ground-truth relationship through cross-task recalibration, while retaining within-task rectification and power tuning to construct accurate point estimates and confidence intervals. We prove that efficiency gains beyond power-tuned PPI are only possible when the proxy-ground-truth relationship contains nonlinear structure; affine cross-task recalibrations are asymptotically equivalent to using the original proxy. We complement our theoretical findings with experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, as well as a case study auditing language models on election-related information during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Using a large human-annotation study, we show that cross-task recalibration can substantially reduce confidence interval widths when labels are scarce.

We study minimal attention-only transformers under all-token corruption and show they admit a two-stage empirical Bayes interpretation. A single attention step computes a kernel-weighted posterior mean with respect to the empirical distribution defined by the context. Depth refines this distribution through particle dynamics (Stage 1), while a long-range skip-connection carries the noisy input as a query for posterior inference (Stage 2), revealing distinct statistical roles for depth and attention residuals. The framework isolates a minimal setting in which the context itself induces a depth-dependent energy landscape governing in-context inference. We show that effective denoising can emerge without an explicit noise schedule: a fixed kernel bandwidth and finite integration horizon suffice, yielding a principled depth-noise relationship. We further establish a posterior-mean recovery guarantee for a class of well-behaved priors, where the empirical estimator converges to the Bayes-optimal predictor under asymptotic conditions. Connecting these dynamics to reverse-diffusion limits, our results provide a statistical interpretation of attention as in-context inference via sample-based posterior estimation, without explicit density modeling.

Estimating how much an intervention helps a given individual the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is increasingly central to decision-making in medicine, economics, and policy, where an estimate is most useful when accompanied by a calibrated uncertainty interval. We study the few-placebo regime, in which one treatment arm is much smaller than the other, as arises in unequal-allocation trials and small-holdout $A/B$ tests. The standard estimator in this setting is the X-Learner, and a natural way to obtain credible intervals is to make its second stage Bayesian. We show that these intervals under-cover: they contain the true effect less often than their nominal level. We trace this to a structural cause the X-Learner's regression target inherits the bias of a nuisance model fitted to the small arm, so the posterior is centered away from the true effect and we find that the standard remedy, regressing an orthogonal doubly-robust score, is also unreliable here, since the regime's limited overlap leaves the estimator either highly variable or, once stabilized, biased once more. Both consequences reflect a pattern that extends beyond causal inference: a separately estimated variance is attached to a point estimate of a hard-to-learn quantity, and the point estimate's bias is not captured by that variance. We propose GP-CATE, which models each arm's outcome surface with a Gaussian process, so the scarce arm's uncertainty enters the posterior directly rather than as an unmodelled bias. Across synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks, GP-CATE attains calibrated coverage where the estimators we compare against including Causal Forest and BART do not, at the cost of intervals that are appropriately wide when the data are uninformative.

Simulation-based inference (SBI; Cranmer et al., 2020) is a powerful framework for inferring parameters of scientific models whose likelihood functions are unavailable or computationally prohibitive to evaluate, but for which simulating data is straightforward. The use of flexible neural conditional density estimators has substantially expanded the applicability of SBI to challenging problems, especially in fields such as particle physics (Brehmer, 2021), cognitive neuroscience (Fengler et al., 2021), economics (Dyer et al., 2024) and cosmology (Alsing et al., 2018; Jeffrey et al., 2021). Neural SBI methods rely on simulations from the scientific model to approximate intractable quantities such as the posterior, the likelihood, the likelihood-to-evidence ratio, or the score function; see Zammit-Mangion et al. (2024) for a recent review. In this work, we focus on the widely used neural posterior estimation (NPE) method (Papamakarios and Murray, 2016; Radev et al., 2022). A central practical limitation of NPE is the simulation budget required to train the conditional density estimator. As many scientific simulators are expensive to run, generating a sufficiently large training set is often the main computational bottleneck.

Nonlinear machine-learning models are increasingly used to discover causal relationships in time-series data, yet the interpretation of their outputs remains poorly understood. In particular, causal scores produced by regularized neural autoregressive models are often treated as analogues of regression coefficients, leading to misleading claims of statistical significance. In this paper, we argue that causal relevance in nonlinear time-series models should be evaluated through forecast necessity rather than coefficient magnitude, and we present a practical evaluation procedure for doing so. We present an interpretable evaluation framework based on systematic edge ablation and forecast comparison, which tests whether a candidate causal relationship is required for accurate prediction. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a case study model, we apply this framework to a real-world case study of democratic development, modeled as a multivariate time series of panel data - democracy indicators across 139 countries. We show that relationships with similar causal scores can differ dramatically in their predictive necessity due to redundancy, temporal persistence, and regime-specific effects. Our results demonstrate how forecast-necessity testing supports more reliable causal reasoning in applied AI systems and provides practical guidance for interpreting nonlinear time-series models in high-stakes domains.

Instrumental variable (IV) analyses generally start by posing a structural equation: Y = hstructural(X)+ϵ, (1) where hstructural represents the causal effect of X on Y, and X and ϵ may be endogenous (E[ϵ | X] = 0). Then given an exogenous instrument Z satisfying the exclusion restriction, the common statistical solution given joint observations of W = (X,Y,Z) P is to conduct inference on some continuous linear functional h 7 EP[m(W;h)] of a solution h H to the linear equation implied by exclusion: TPh = rP, (2) where TP: H G maps h 7 argming GEP(h(X) g(Z))2, rP = argminr GEP(Y r(Z))2, and H, G are closed linear subspaces of square-integrable functions of X and of Z, respectively. For example, if these are all square-integrable functions, then (TPh)(Z) = EP[h(X) | Z] is the conditional expectation.

Predicting the effect of interventions with many possible variations, e.g., therapeutic content that affects mental health outcomes or an earnings call transcript that drives movement in share price, is useful across several domains. However, classical causal estimators tend to assume that all possible interventions are observed, which is infeasible when interventions vary widely, for instance, in the space of all text strings. We adapt a well-known approach of recasting causal inference as a learning problem, to address high-dimensional treatment spaces. Specifically, under standard assumptions like no unobserved confounding, we show that causal error decomposes into a series of moment-balancing errors of increasing order, and design objectives that directly improve causal estimation. We also show how to project the effect of a high-dimensional treatment onto lower-dimensional treatment attributes, which allows a single model to answer several causal questions without additional attribute-specific training. We empirically evaluate our estimators in settings with high-dimensional continuous, discrete, and text treatments, the last of which used a semi-synthetic dataset of Amazon Reviews. Our experiments demonstrate the benefit of higher-order balance error optimization and competitive performance of projected causal estimates with attribute-specific estimators.

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.

Modern Artificial Intelligence achieves remarkable predictive power by optimizing statistical risk functionals over vast corpora. Yet a gap separates this from genuine intelligence: the inability to distinguish correlation from causation. This paper argues that causal inference (identifying mechanisms invariant under intervention) is AI's indispensable statistical conscience. Without causal grounding, AI systems are correlation machines: powerful in familiar domains, brittle under distribution shift, and biased in high-stakes settings. Three contributions develop this argument. First, a Statistical Necessity Theorem for Causal Generalization: any algorithm achieving out-of-distribution generalization must encode causal structure, formalizing the distinction between prediction P(Y|X) and intelligence P(Y|do(X)). Second, a unified framework connects Pearl's do-calculus, the Potential Outcomes framework, Double Machine Learning, and Invariant Risk Minimization as a family of Causal Statistical Estimators, each identifying interventional distributions under different assumptions. Third, three AI failure modes (hallucination in large language models, reward hacking in reinforcement learning from human feedback, and degradation under distribution shift) are manifestations of causal blindness, each admitting a principled statistical remedy. Trustworthy AI is, at its core, a problem of causal statistics. The statistical community is not merely equipped to solve it -- it is the only community with the foundational tools to do so rigorously.