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.

Missing data imputation remains a fundamental challenge in modern data science, especially when uncertainty quantification is essential. In this work, we propose MissBGM, an AI-powered missing data imputation method via Bayesian generative modeling that bridges the expressive flexibility of neural networks with the statistical rigor of Bayesian inference. Unlike existing methods that often focus on point estimates or treat the missingness mechanism implicitly, MissBGM explicitly and jointly models the data-generating and missingness mechanisms, providing principled posterior uncertainty over imputations rather than a single point estimate. We develop a stochastic optimization framework with alternating updates among missing values, model parameters, and latent variables until convergence. Our theoretical analysis shows that estimates of missing values from MissBGM converge consistently under mild assumptions. Empirically, we demonstrate that MissBGM achieves superior performance over traditional imputers and recent neural network-based methods across extensive experimental settings. These results establish MissBGM as a principled and scalable solution for modern missing data imputation.

This section gives a brief overview of some of the useful properties of spherical harmonics. We refer the interested reader to Dai and Xu [55] and Efthimiou and Frye [56] for an in-depth overview. Spherical harmonics are special functions defined on a hypersphere and originate from solving Laplace's equation. They form a complete set of orthogonal functions, and any sufficiently regular function defined on the sphere can be written as a sum of these spherical harmonics, similar to the Fourier series with sines and cosines. Spherical harmonics have a natural ordering by increasing angular frequency.

Deep neural networks have been known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, raising lots of security concerns in the practical deployment. Popular defensive approaches can be formulated as a (distributionally) robust optimization problem, which minimizes a ``point estimate'' of worst-case loss derived from either per-datum perturbation or adversary data-generating distribution within certain pre-defined constraints. This point estimate ignores potential test adversaries that are beyond the pre-defined constraints. The model robustness might deteriorate sharply in the scenario of stronger test adversarial data. In this work, a novel robust training framework is proposed to alleviate this issue, Bayesian Robust Learning, in which a distribution is put on the adversarial data-generating distribution to account for the uncertainty of the adversarial data-generating process.

Research in artificial intelligence, and particularly deep reinforcement learning (RL), relies on evaluating aggregate performance on a diverse suite of tasks to assess progress.

Forecasting future world events is a challenging but valuable task.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent unreliable results from stagnating the field. This work received an outstanding paper award at NeurIPS 2021.

Neural networks and Gaussian processes are complementary in their strengths and weaknesses. Having a better understanding of their relationship comes with the promise to make each method benefit from the strengths of the other. In this work, we establish an equivalence between the forward passes of neural networks and (deep) sparse Gaussian process models. The theory we develop is based on interpreting activation functions as interdomain inducing features through a rigorous analysis of the interplay between activation functions and kernels. This results in models that can either be seen as neural networks with improved uncertainty prediction or deep Gaussian processes with increased prediction accuracy. These claims are supported by experimental results on regression and classification datasets.

We revisit the classic ski rental problem through the lens of Bayesian decision-making and machine-learned predictions. While traditional algorithms minimize worst-case cost without assumptions, and recent learning-augmented approaches leverage noisy forecasts with robustness guarantees, our work unifies these perspectives. We propose a discrete Bayesian framework that maintains exact posterior distributions over the time horizon, enabling principled uncertainty quantification and seamless incorporation of expert priors. Our algorithm achieves prior-dependent competitive guarantees and gracefully interpolates between worst-case and fully-informed settings. Our extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates superior empirical performance across diverse scenarios, achieving near-optimal results under accurate priors while maintaining robust worst-case guarantees. This framework naturally extends to incorporate multiple predictions, non-uniform priors, and contextual information, highlighting the practical advantages of Bayesian reasoning in online decision problems with imperfect predictions.

This article presents the first systematic review of unsupervised and semi-supervised computational text-based ideal point estimation (CT-IPE) algorithms, methods designed to infer latent political positions from textual data. These algorithms are widely used in political science, communication, computational social science, and computer science to estimate ideological preferences from parliamentary speeches, party manifestos, and social media. Over the past two decades, their development has closely followed broader NLP trends -- beginning with word-frequency models and most recently turning to large language models (LLMs). While this trajectory has greatly expanded the methodological toolkit, it has also produced a fragmented field that lacks systematic comparison and clear guidance for applied use. To address this gap, we identified 25 CT-IPE algorithms through a systematic literature review and conducted a manual content analysis of their modeling assumptions and development contexts. To compare them meaningfully, we introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes how algorithms generate, capture, and aggregate textual variance. On this basis, we identify four methodological families -- word-frequency, topic modeling, word embedding, and LLM-based approaches -- and critically assess their assumptions, interpretability, scalability, and limitations. Our review offers three contributions. First, it provides a structured synthesis of two decades of algorithm development, clarifying how diverse methods relate to one another. Second, it translates these insights into practical guidance for applied researchers, highlighting trade-offs in transparency, technical requirements, and validation strategies that shape algorithm choice. Third, it emphasizes that differences in estimation outcomes across algorithms are themselves informative, underscoring the need for systematic benchmarking.