Applied work with interference typically models outcomes as functions of own treatment and a low-dimensional exposure mapping of others' treatments, even when that mapping may be misspecified. This raises a basic question: what policy object are exposure-based estimands implicitly targeting, and how should we interpret their direct and spillover components relative to the underlying policy question? We take as primitive the marginal policy effect, defined as the effect of a small change in the treatment probability under the actual experimental design, and show that any researcher-chosen exposure mapping induces a unique pseudo-true outcome model. This model is the best approximation to the underlying potential outcomes that depends only on the user-chosen exposure. Utilizing that representation, the marginal policy effect admits a canonical decomposition into exposure-based direct and spillover effects, and each component provides its optimal approximation to the corresponding oracle objects that would be available if interference were fully known. We then focus on a setting that nests important empirical and theoretical applications in which both local network spillovers and global spillovers, such as market equilibrium, operate. There, the marginal policy effect further decomposes asymptotically into direct, local, and global channels. An important implication is that many existing methods are more robust than previously understood once we reinterpret their targets as channel-specific components of this pseudo-true policy estimand. Simulations and a semi-synthetic experiment calibrated to a large cash-transfer experiment show that these components can be recovered in realistic experimental designs.

We examine an adaptive learning framework for nonatomic congestion games where the players' cost functions may be subject to exogenous fluctuations (e.g., due to disturbances in the network, variations in the traffic going through a link, etc.).

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when developing policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using observational datasets, which may suffer from unobserved confounding and selection bias. Given a set of observational estimates (e.g., from multiple studies), we propose a meta-algorithm that attempts to reject observational estimates that are biased. We do so using validation effects, causal effects that can be inferred from both RCT and observational data. After rejecting estimators that do not pass this test, we generate conservative confidence intervals on the extrapolated causal effects for subgroups not observed in the RCT. Under the assumption that at least one observational estimator is asymptotically normal and consistent for both the validation and extrapolated effects, we provide guarantees on the coverage probability of the intervals output by our algorithm. To facilitate hypothesis testing in settings where causal effect transportation across datasets is necessary, we give conditions under which a doubly-robust estimator of group average treatment effects is asymptotically normal, even when flexible machine learning methods are used for estimation of nuisance parameters. We illustrate the properties of our approach on semi-synthetic experiments based on the IHDP dataset, and show that it compares favorably to standard meta-analysis techniques.

Counterfactual learning for dealing with missing-not-at-random data (MNAR) is an intriguing topic in the recommendation literature, since MNAR data are ubiquitous in modern recommender systems. Instead, missing-at-random (MAR) data, namely randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are usually required by most previous counterfactual learning methods. However, the execution of RCTs is extraordinarily expensive in practice. To circumvent the use of RCTs, we build an information theoretic counterfactual variational information bottleneck (CVIB), as an alternative for debiasing learning without RCTs. By separating the task-aware mutual information term in the original information bottleneck Lagrangian into factual and counterfactual parts, we derive a contrastive information loss and an additional output confidence penalty, which facilitates balanced learning between the factual and counterfactual domains. Empirical evaluation on real-world datasets shows that our CVIB significantly enhances both shallow and deep models, which sheds light on counterfactual learning in recommendation that goes beyond RCTs.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been the cornerstone of clinical evidence; however, their cost, duration, and restrictive eligibility criteria limit power and external validity. Studies using real-world data (RWD), historically considered less reliable for establishing causality, are now recognized to be important for generating real-world evidence (RWE). In parallel, artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are being increasingly used throughout the drug development process, providing scalability and flexibility but also presenting challenges in interpretability and rigor that traditional statistics do not face. This Perspective argues that the future of evidence generation will not depend on RCTs versus RWD, or statistics versus AI/ML, but on their principled integration. To this end, a causal roadmap is needed to clarify inferential goals, make assumptions explicit, and ensure transparency about tradeoffs. We highlight key objectives of integrative evidence synthesis, including transporting RCT results to broader populations, embedding AI-assisted analyses within RCTs, designing hybrid controlled trials, and extending short-term RCTs with long-term RWD. We also outline future directions in privacy-preserving analytics, uncertainty quantification, and small-sample methods. By uniting statistical rigor with AI/ML innovation, integrative approaches can produce robust, transparent, and policy-relevant evidence, making them a key component of modern regulatory science.

Online Internet platforms require sophisticated marketing strategies to optimize user retention and platform revenue -- a classical resource allocation problem. Traditional solutions adopt a two-stage pipeline: machine learning (ML) for predicting individual treatment effects to marketing actions, followed by operations research (OR) optimization for decision-making. This paradigm presents two fundamental technical challenges. First, the prediction-decision misalignment: Conventional ML methods focus solely on prediction accuracy without considering downstream optimization objectives, leading to improved predictive metrics that fail to translate to better decisions. Second, the bias-variance dilemma: Observational data suffers from multiple biases (e.g., selection bias, position bias), while experimental data (e.g., randomized controlled trials), though unbiased, is typically scarce and costly -- resulting in high-variance estimates. We propose Bi-level Decision-Focused Causal Learning (Bi-DFCL) that systematically addresses these challenges. First, we develop an unbiased estimator of OR decision quality using experimental data, which guides ML model training through surrogate loss functions that bridge discrete optimization gradients. Second, we establish a bi-level optimization framework that jointly leverages observational and experimental data, solved via implicit differentiation. This novel formulation enables our unbiased OR estimator to correct learning directions from biased observational data, achieving optimal bias-variance tradeoff. Extensive evaluations on public benchmarks, industrial marketing datasets, and large-scale online A/B tests demonstrate the effectiveness of Bi-DFCL, showing statistically significant improvements over state-of-the-art. Currently, Bi-DFCL has been deployed at Meituan, one of the largest online food delivery platforms in the world.

However, RCTs are extraordinarily expensive to be executed in a real-world recommender system.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effect of new medical treatments. Treatments must pass stringent regulatory conditions in order to be approved for widespread use, yet even after the regulatory barriers are crossed, real-world challenges might arise: Who should get the treatment? What is its true clinical utility? Are there discrepancies in the treatment effectiveness across diverse and under-served populations? We introduce two new objectives for future clinical trials that integrate regulatory constraints and treatment policy value for both the entire population and under-served populations, thus answering some of the questions above in advance. Designed to meet these objectives, we formulate Randomize First Augment Next (RFAN), a new framework for designing Phase III clinical trials. Our framework consists of a standard randomized component followed by an adaptive one, jointly meant to efficiently and safely acquire and assign patients into treatment arms during the trial. Then, we propose strategies for implementing RFAN based on causal, deep Bayesian active learning. Finally, we empirically evaluate the performance of our framework using synthetic and real-world semi-synthetic datasets.