Robustness of neural networks is commonly quantified via local or global Lipschitz constants. However, Lipschitz continuity can be overly coarse or overly restrictive as global robustness measure, failing to capture nuanced, data-dependent behavior. We propose a data-driven, architecture-agnostic framework based on the discrete modulus of continuity (DMOC), a non linear generalization of Lipschitz continuity that provides a finer notion of robustness. Unlike many existing approaches, DMOC does not require access to model internals and instead evaluates regularity relative to the data distribution. This shifts the focus from the model to the data, which provide a data-driven baseline of regularity against which the network's robustness is assessed. We establish convergence results for DMOC-induced seminorms with explicit data-driven rates in terms of the separation distance, and introduce a scalable minibatch algorithm that reduces the quadratic cost of exact computation, enabling application to large-scale data sets such as ImageNet. Empirically, DMOC serves as an architecture independent diagnostic: it distinguishes trained from untrained networks, reveals underfitting and overfitting regimes, and yields, as a special case, tight Lipschitz estimates comparable to state-of-the-art method such as ECLipsE and ECLipsE-fast.

When treatment effects are naturally expressed as ratios -- as in medicine, pricing, and marketing -- the ratio-based CATE $τ(x) = E[Y|W=1,X=x] / E[Y|W=0,X=x]$ is the appropriate estimand. Yet existing estimators either impose a log-linear parametric structure or apply generic regression without robustness guarantees for this functional. We introduce the Q-Learner, which decomposes $τ(x)$ into a product of two odds ratios, reducing ratio-CATE estimation for binary outcomes to two propensity classification tasks. We further derive doubly robust augmentations for both S/T- and Q-style ratio learners and characterize their distinct robustness properties. In benchmarks on seven RCT datasets, the Q-Learner is the most consistently competitive method in low-conversion regimes, where its propensity-only construction sidesteps the imbalanced regression that hurts outcome-based estimators. On four observational datasets, where propensity must be estimated and confounding cannot be ruled out, the DR learners introduced here decisively come out on top, making them practitioners' natural default for confounded observational data.

Predictive models trained on observational data often fail to generalise to the distributions they encounter when deployed, especially when the training data is a product of the system being optimised. Recommender systems are a canonical example: they are trained on interaction logs confounded by the deployed policy, past user behaviour, and platform filtering. As a result, the training distribution differs substantially from the candidate distribution scored at serving time, a gap that makes offline metrics unreliable predictors of online performance. We address the distribution shift problem with a method motivated by causal representation learning (CRL). We propose an information-theoretic disentanglement criterion and prove that its optimum depends only on the causal components of the input. We then derive a tractable variational lower bound that makes the criterion optimisable from finite observational data alone. The scope of our method is narrower than that of much of the CRL literature, in that we target better generalisation under distribution shift, not full identification of all latent causal factors. This narrower target is what makes the method practical, requiring only the existing confounded logs, applying to any standard supervised model, and adding no inference-time cost. Our headline evaluation is an A/B test with millions of users on Spotify, applied to a production ranker for personalised playlist generation. A capacity-matched CRL variant performed on par offline but delivered substantial online gains in listener engagement. Complementary evidence on the public KuaiRand recommendation dataset and a synthetic benchmark with known causal structure shows the same pattern: offline parity with baseline, gains under distribution shift. Across all three settings, adding our causal disentanglement objective yields meaningfully better out-of-distribution generalisation.

We introduce a new measure of robustness for statistical estimators, which we call \emph{empirical sensitivity}. An estimator $\hat θ$ has bounded empirical sensitivity if, with high probability over a dataset $X = (X_1, \dots, X_n) \sim \mathcal{D}^{\otimes n}$, for any dataset $Y$ obtained by modifying at most $ηn$ points in $X$, we have that $\hat θ(Y)$ is close to $\hat θ(X)$. We study bounds on this quantity for the prototypical problem of Gaussian mean estimation. We prove new lower bounds, showing that for any estimator $\hat μ$ which achieves an optimal $\ell_2$-error bound of $O\left(\sqrt{d/n}\right)$, the empirical sensitivity is at least $Ω\left(η+ \sqrt{ηd/n}\right)$. The two terms arise due to obstructions on the mean and variance (via an Efron-Stein argument) of such an estimator. We show that this bound is tight up to logarithmic factors, by employing recent results for robust empirical mean estimation.

A natural assumption is that if each model is individually calibrated, the aggregate prediction will also be well calibrated. We show that this assumption fails in multi-agent settings: individually calibrated predictors can become collectively miscalibrated when their predictions interact strategically--where "strategically" refers to the game-theoretic sense of Brier-optimal local response, not deliberate gaming or collusion, and arises naturally whenever agents are independently trained on overlapping data. This phenomenon affects multiple independent agents in federated healthcare, multi-vendor intrusion detection, and crowdsourced forecasting, where agents optimize their own objectives. Specifically, we prove that under Brier-score-based aggregation with positively correlated beliefs each agent's individually optimal report systematically underestimates the positive-class probability, yielding a Price of Anarchy strictly greater than one whenever Cov(bi,bj) > 0. At our canonical setting (n=5 agents, pairwise correlation ρ=0.5, base rate µ=0.3, threshold τ=0.3) the empirically measured PoA in false-negative rate is 7.25 (mean aggregate bias 0.375). In contrast, VCG-based aggregation, which rewards each agent's marginal contribution to aggregate accuracy, achieves dominant-strategy incentive compatibility and the lowest empirical PoA among all mechanisms studied (PoA 1.0). On three real-world datasets (NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, Credit Card Fraud) with featurepartitioned agents, VCG provides the strongest robustness guarantees among the aggregation methods we evaluate, while maintaining comparable accuracy. In data-sparse regimes (n 500), VCG consistently outperforms stacking and majority voting; under adversarial agents, VCG maintains substantially lower false-negative rates than robust aggregation baselines. Adaptive weight updates further reduce false negatives by 20-22% under distribution shift, with O( T) online regret guarantees. These results establish that how probabilistic predictions are aggregated matters as much as how well individual models are calibrated.

We present TailedTS, a large-scale benchmark dataset derived from Wikipedia hourly page view observations throughout 2024, specifically designed to test time series forecasting models under heavy-tailed, zero-inflated, and non-Gaussian conditions. The dataset comprises approximately 24.69 billion data points spanning roughly 3 million unique Wikipedia pages per month, stored in high-efficiency Apache Parquet format. Wikipedia traffic follows a pronounced power-law distribution where roughly 5% of pages account for over 70% of total page views, creating a natural and rigorous testbed for model robustness against extreme volatility that are absent from or underrepresented in existing benchmarks such as M4, M5, and UCI electricity datasets. TailedTS enables several research tasks. First, we introduce a periodicity quantification framework based on sparse autoregression with sparsity and non-negativity constraints, revealing that frequently-viewed pages exhibit significantly weaker periodic structure than their less-viewed counterparts, showing direct implications for server allocation and traffic forecasting on large digital platforms. Second, we provide standardized prediction benchmarks evaluated under a suite of non-Gaussian loss functions, including $\ell_1$-norm, Huber, quantile, and $\ell_p$-norm losses, demonstrating that standard Gaussian-based estimators degrade substantially on high-volume page categories, while robust alternatives provide consistent gains across all traffic scales. TailedTS is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17070469.

We propose a variational quantum classifier operating on high dimensional deep representations via amplitude encoding, stabilized by a learnable classical pre encoding layer.By combining normalized amplitude embeddings with bounded quantum observables, the resulting model induces a structured and smooth hypothesis class with controlled sensitivity to input variations. Model reliability is assessed using SAFE-AI metrics derived from the Cramer von Mises divergence, enabling consistent evaluation across accuracy, robustness, and explainability dimensions. Empirical results show that the proposed quantum model provides competitive predictive performance compared with strong classical baselines while exhibiting a more balanced SAFE reliability profile, with improved robustness to noise and stability under structured feature removal. These findings suggest that variational quantum circuits offer a principled mechanism for stability oriented SAFE learning in safety critical settings.

Large language models are increasingly deployed with test-time strategies: sample $N$ responses, score them with a reward model or verifier, and return the best. This deployment rule exposes a mismatch in post-training: standard objectives optimize the mean reward of a single response, whereas best-of-$N$ performance is governed by the upper tail of the reward distribution. Recent test-time-aware objectives partly address this mismatch, but typically assume that training can use the same per-prompt rollout budget as deployment, which is impractical when post-training must cover many prompts while deployment can allocate much larger per-prompt test-time compute. We study this budget-mismatch regime, where only $m\ll N$ per-prompt rollouts are available during training but the target objective is best-of-$N$ deployment. Under structural assumptions on the reward tails, we show that the policy gradient of the best-of-$N$ objective can be approximated from a much smaller rollout group by extrapolating upper-tail statistics. This yields a family of Tail-Extrapolated estimators for best-of-$N$-oriented post-training: a simple direct estimator, Tail-Extrapolated Advantage (TEA), and a fixed-order debiased Prefix-TEA estimator based on moment cancellation. Experiments on instruction-following tasks show that TEA and Prefix-TEA improve best-of-$N$ performance across different language models, reward models and datasets under various training and test-time budget settings.

A major bottleneck in characterizing the failure modes of generative AI systems is the cost and time of annotation and evaluation. Consequently, adaptive testing paradigms have gained popularity, where one opportunistically decides which cases and how many to annotate based on past results. While this framework is highly practical, its extreme flexibility makes it difficult to draw statistically rigorous conclusions, as it violates classical assumptions: the number of observations is typically limited (often 10 to 50 cases) and decisions regarding sampling and stopping are made in the midst of data collection rather than based a pre-specified rule. To characterize what statistical inferences can be drawn from highly adaptive audits, we introduce a hypothesis testing framework from two 'dueling' perspectives: (i) the model's null that asserts there is no failure mode with performance below a target threshold versus (ii) the auditor's null that asserts they have a sampling strategy that will uncover a failure mode. Leveraging Safe Anytime-Valid Inference (SAVI), we formalize the auditor as conducting 'testing by betting', which translates into simultaneous e-processes for testing the dueling null hypotheses. Furthermore, if the auditor is sufficiently powerful, we prove that these two hypotheses are asymptotically inverses of each other, in that passage of a stringent audit does in fact certify the AI system as being globally robust. Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed testing procedures maintain anytime-valid type-I error control, outperform pre-specified testing methods, and can reach statistically rigorous conclusions sometimes with as few as 20 observations.

This paper proposes a hybrid methodology to improve the approximation of SABR (Stochastic Alpha Beta Rho) implied volatility by combining analytical structure with machine learning. The approach augments the neural-network input representation with geometric features derived from the stochastic differential equations of the SABR model. Unlike approaches that fully replace analytical formulas with black-box models, the proposed framework preserves the analytical backbone of the model. The hybridization operates along two complementary dimensions. First, geometry-aware variables reflecting intrinsic properties of the SABR dynamics are used as structured inputs to the network. Second, the neural network is trained to learn the residual error relative to Hagan's closed-form approximation rather than implied volatility directly. The resulting model acts as a structured residual correction to the analytical formula, retaining interpretability while capturing higher-order effects that are not included in the asymptotic expansion. Numerical experiments conducted over realistic parameter domains, as well as stressed environments, show that the method improves accuracy and robustness compared with both analytical approximations and standard neural-network approaches. Because the correction remains lightweight and structurally consistent with the underlying model, the framework is well suited for real-time pricing and calibration in practical trading environments.