Understanding the effects of interventions is central to scientific progress, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarded as the gold standard for causal inference in many applied fields. However, RCTs are costly, time-consuming, and often constrained by ethical or practical limitations, motivating the need for causal methods able to draw conclusions from observational data. While such data is collected at ever larger scale, making its use for causal inference is often hindered by the fact that not all variables affecting treatment allocation and the outcome are observed - an issue known as unobserved confounding. In this paper, we introduce a new study design called confounder detection via treatment intent. The idea is to query a human expert who makes treatment decisions, and ask them to compare pairs of units proposed by a principled matching strategy, with the goal of eliciting unobserved variables that explain why treatment decisions differ. We provide a theoretical basis for such a procedure, ascertaining conditions under which such a study design may elicit unobserved confounders. Building on this newly established foundations, we study treatment effects of interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU). First, we show empirical evidence strongly indicating that electronic health records (EHRs) collected in ICUs are subject to unobserved confounding. By using clinical text notes as a proxy for physicians' knowledge and leveraging natural language processing, we provide a proof of concept for our methodology in a semi-synthetic environment with a known ground truth.

Minimizing the Mean Squared Error (MSE) is a key objective in machine learning and is commonly used for imputing missing values. While this approach provides accurate point estimates, it introduces systematic biases in downstream analyses. These biases affect key parameters such as variance, prevalence, correlation, slope, and explained variance. The root cause is that imputed values optimized for MSE are averages, which reduce the natural variability in the data. This paper demonstrates that adding noise to imputed values can effectively eliminate these biases. The required noise level is proportional to the MSE. Using a toy example in a multivariate normal setting, we compare two methods: predictive imputation, which minimizes MSE, and stochastic imputation, which incorporates random noise. Simulation results show that predictive methods systematically introduce bias, while stochastic methods preserve the data's natural variability and produce unbiased estimates. We also evaluate three popular imputation tools -- missForest, softImpute, and mice -- and observe consistent biases in predictive methods. These findings highlight that MSE is an inadequate measure of imputation quality, as it prioritizes accuracy over variability. Incorporating noise into imputation methods is essential to prevent biases and ensure valid downstream analyses, underscoring the importance of stochastic approaches for handling incomplete data.

G.1 Monoids Monoids are one of the simplest algebraic structure.

We study the approximation power of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) on latent position random graphs. In the large graph limit, GNNs are known to converge to certain "continuous" models known as c-GNNs, which directly enables a study of their approximation power on random graph models. In the absence of input node features however, just as GNNs are limited by the Weisfeiler-Lehman isomorphism test, c-GNNs will be severely limited on simple random graph models. For instance, they will fail to distinguish the communities of a well-separated Stochastic Block Model (SBM) with constant degree function. Thus, we consider recently proposed architectures that augment GNNs with unique node identifiers, referred to as Structural GNNs here (SGNNs). We study the convergence of SGNNs to their continuous counterpart (c-SGNNs) in the large random graph limit, under new conditions on the node identifiers. We then show that c-SGNNs are strictly more powerful than c-GNNs in the continuous limit, and prove their universality on several random graph models of interest, including most SBMs and a large class of random geometric graphs. Our results cover both permutation-invariant and permutation-equivariant architectures.

We now recall basic results concerning the theory of Koopman (i.e.

Standard policy gradients weight each sampled action by advantage alone, regardless of how likely that action was under the current policy. This creates two pathologies: within a single decision context (e.g. one image or prompt), a rare negative-advantage action can disproportionately distort the update direction; across many such contexts in a batch, the expected gradient over-allocates budget to contexts the policy already handles well. We introduce the \textit{Delightful Policy Gradient} (DG), which gates each term with a sigmoid of \emph{delight}, the product of advantage and action surprisal (negative log-probability). For $K$-armed bandits, DG provably improves directional accuracy in a single context and, across multiple contexts, shifts the expected gradient strictly closer to the supervised cross-entropy oracle. This second effect is not variance reduction: it persists even with infinite samples. Empirically, DG outperforms REINFORCE, PPO, and advantage-weighted baselines across MNIST, transformer sequence modeling, and continuous control, with larger gains on harder tasks.

In contrast, we use 10% of the training set9 for validation, and treat the validation set as apurely held-out test set (this also means that we train on less data).10 Wewillexplainthismoreclearly.30 both spheres are sufficiently tiny (i.e.

Optimal Transport (OT) + Fairness (R2, R4): Let us highlight two key differences between "Wasserstein Fair10 Classification" (Jiang et al.) and our work. Generally group fairness constraints31 are trying to reflect a certain independence between the prediction and the sensitive attribute.