Classification and Regression Trees (CART) constitute one of the most influential paradigms in statistical learning. Although a variety of impurity measures have been proposed for different statistical models, these criteria are typically introduced on a case-by-case basis and analyzed separately. In this paper, we study CART through the lens of Bregman divergences. This perspective places the classical least-squares criterion, Poisson deviance, Kullback-Leibler-type losses, and other impurity measures associated with exponential-family models within a common framework. As a result, key ingredients of the CART methodology -- including node representatives, impurity measures, and split selection rules -- can be expressed and analyzed through general properties of convex functions rather than through separate model-specific constructions. Beyond the algorithmic formulation, we investigate theoretical properties of Bregman-based CART procedures. In particular, we analyze how geometric properties of the generating convex function influence impurity reductions and stability of recursive partitions. We also establish consistency results within the proposed framework, providing a unified theoretical treatment for a broad family of CART type procedures. Our results provide a geometric interpretation of impurity-based tree construction and show that many classical CART impurity criteria admit a common interpretation within a Bregman framework.

Data attribution methods aim to answer useful counterfactual questions like "what would a ML model's prediction be if it were trained on a different dataset?" However, estimation of data attribution models through techniques like empirical influence or "datamodeling" remains very computationally expensive. This causes a critical trust issue: if only a few computationally rich parties can obtain data attributions, how can resource-constrained parties trust that the provided attributions are indeed "good," especially when they are used for important downstream applications (e.g., data pricing)? In this paper, we address this trust issue by proposing an interactive verification paradigm for data attribution. An untrusted and computationally powerful Prover learns data attributions, and then engages in an interactive proof with a resource-constrained Verifier.

Structure-agnostic (SA) models introduced by Balakrishnan et al. (2026) aim to reflect the general lack of knowledge of structural assumptions on data-generating laws such as smoothness or sparsity in practice. Roughly speaking, SA models restrict the observed-data generating law to be in some rn-neighborhood of (black-box machine learning) estimates, treated as given and fixed, where rn encodes the convergence rates of the estimates to the truth. Under SA models, Balakrishnan et al. (2026) show that the popular Double Machine Learning (DML) estimators for three functionals, the quadratic functional in the Gaussian sequence model, the quadratic density integral functional and the expected conditional covariance, are minimax. However, minimax estimators may be inadmissible. In this paper, we show that, for the first two of the three functionals, the DML estimator is asymptotically inadmissible under the SA model. In particular, we show that these two functionals fall into a class of functionals, which we refer to as the monotone bias class. For this class, we exhibit second-order (U-statistic) estimators, which asymptotically dominate DML estimators, under the SA model. These second-order estimators are empirical higher-order influence function (HOIF) estimators introduced in Liu et al. (2017). Furthermore, the empirical HOIF estimator, like the DML estimator, is minimax for the third functional (the expected conditional covariance), although neither asymptotically dominates the other.

Bayesian experimental design (BED) has traditionally been based on maximising expected uncertainty reductions from prior to posterior. A major shortfall of this approach is that it leads to doubly intractable objectives that are difficult to optimise, while customising them to particular downstream tasks of interest can also be difficult. Following first principles decision theory, we demonstrate that BED can alternatively be formulated in terms of an expected future loss (EFL) on downstream actions, providing a simple and naturally task-driven framework. Critically, we then show that all such EFLs can be rearranged into singly intractable objectives that can be jointly optimised with respect to both the design policy and a downstream action policy using stochastic gradients, an approach we refer to as ACTION-BED. This formulation further sidesteps the need for any explicit posterior or marginal likelihood estimation and is naturally implicit, requiring only the ability to sample from the joint model over model parameters and data, and evaluate the downstream loss function. It thus allows design policies to be learned more effectively, efficiently, and simply than existing methods, while providing easy customisation to different downstream tasks and losses.

Long-term Time Series Forecasting (LTSF) tasks, which leverage the current data sequence as input to predict the future sequence, have become increasingly crucial in real-world applications such as weather forecasting and planning of electricity consumption. However, state-of-the-art LTSF models often fail to achieve prediction output alignment for the same timestamps across lagged input sequences.

This paper studies how to integrate historical control data with experimental data to enhance A/B testing, while addressing the distributional shift between historical and experimental datasets. We propose a pessimistic data integration method that combines two causal effect estimators constructed based on experimental and historical datasets. Our main idea is to conceptualize the weight function for this combination as a policy so that existing pessimistic policy learning algorithms are applicable to learn the optimal weight that minimizes the resulting weighted estimator's mean squared error. Additionally, we conduct comprehensive theoretical and empirical analyses to compare our method against various baseline estimators across five scenarios. Both our theoretical and numerical findings demonstrate that the proposed estimator achieves near-optimal performance across all scenarios.

Large-scale neural language models exhibit remarkable performance in in-context learning: the ability to learn and reason about the input context on the fly. This work studies in-context counterfactual reasoning in language models, that is, the ability to predict consequences of a hypothetical scenario. We focus on a well-defined, synthetic linear regression task that requires noise abduction. Accurate prediction is based on (1) inferring an unobserved latent concept and (2) copying contextual noise from factual observations. We show that language models are capable of counterfactual reasoning. Further, we enhance existing identifiability results and reduce counterfactual reasoning for a broad class of functions to a transformation on in-context observations.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a standard recipe for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models. Existing algorithms face a tradeoff between computational efficiency and sample efficiency in value estimation and policy learning. We introduce BASIS, a critic-free post-training algorithm designed to address this tradeoff. At each online training step, BASIS samples only one rollout per prompt, but leverages rich information across prompts in the entire batch to improve value function estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that BASIS reduces MSE in value function estimation by 69% compared to REINFORCE++, a representative single-rollout baseline, and achieves lower MSE with one rollout than group mean estimators with 8 rollouts. This improvement in value estimation translates to better policy optimization: using substantially less training time, BASIS achieves performance close to multi-rollout GRPO-type baselines and often outperforms single-rollout REINFORCE-type baselines.

Deploying clinical prediction models across healthcare systems often fails when key training covariates are unavailable at deployment and labeled outcomes are limited in the target domain. For example, high-performing models for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) rely on detailed prehospital measurements routinely collected in high-resource settings but unavailable in many international registries. Existing methods either discard missing covariates, sacrificing predictive information, or rely on untestable assumptions about their target distribution. We propose DRUM (\underline{D}istributionally \underline{R}obust \underline{U}nsupervised transfer learning with structurally \underline{M}issing covariates), a framework that transfers prediction models to target populations where certain covariates are structurally absent and outcome labels are unavailable. DRUM partitions covariates into shared components ($X$), observed across all settings, and missing components ($A$), observed only in the source. Rather than imputing missing covariates, DRUM optimizes worst-case predictive performance over the unknown target distribution of $A \mid X$ using a neural network generator, with a robustness parameter controlling allowable deviation from the source conditional. We further develop a bias correction procedure that reduces sensitivity to nuisance estimation error. Simulations show substantial improvements in both mean and worst-case prediction error under distribution shift. Applied to cross-national OHCA prediction, transferring models from a US registry to multiple Asian registries where prehospital variables are unrecorded, DRUM yields better-calibrated predictions and improved clinical classification performance across sites.

Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of established science. We introduce DiscoverPhysics, an interactive benchmark that asks a LLM agent to discover the laws of motion of a simulated world whose physics deliberately deviates from our own. We construct 22 worlds governed by, among others, screened and fractional-power gravity, multi-species couplings, hidden dark-matter-like particles, non-coordinate-free physics, and time-varying interactions. Each world is generated on demand by an N-body simulator, for which the agent proposes several rounds of experiments, observes raw trajectory data, and ultimately submits both a natural-language explanation of the world's physics and a Python implementation of the inferred law. Because solving a world requires the agent to design informative experiments and revise its hypotheses, the benchmark probes long-horizon reasoning over an experimental history. We evaluate submissions along two complementary axes: trajectory MSE on held-out particles and an LLM-judged explanation score following an expert-written rubric assessing conceptual understanding of each world. Across eleven frontier models, we find that the strongest agents pass only half of the worlds and consistently fail on those where latent structure must be uncovered. Open-source models lag substantially behind commercial models, both in their ability to design informative experiments and in extracting conclusions from the data. We further find that good predictive accuracy does not guarantee high explanation quality and that conceptual understanding depends on hypothesis refinement through well-chosen experiments.