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.

Capped-usage SaaS products -- LLM subscriptions such as Claude Code and ChatGPT, cloud platforms such as Vercel and Cloudflare Workers, corporate benefit platforms, identity-verification services with liability transfer -- share a structural signature with insurance products: a fixed premium decoupled from realized consumption, stochastic per-user demand with heavy-tailed severity, a non-fungible cap that resets on a fixed schedule, and a portfolio-level exposure that requires reserve adequacy under tail risk. We argue that this is not an analogy. It is the same operational problem actuarial science has been tooled for decades to address, restated with new dependent variables (tokens, bandwidth bytes, function-invocations, gym check-ins) in place of medical claims. This paper proposes a modeling framework for capped-usage SaaS pricing built from frequency-severity decomposition, premium calculation principles, and Monte Carlo reserve adequacy. We map the framework to publicly observable subscription tiers in two domains (LLM services and cloud platforms), ground it in canonical health-insurance economics (Arrow 1963; Pauly 1968; Manning et al. 1987; Brot-Goldberg et al. 2017), and demonstrate divergence from traditional unit economics through a worked example. The contribution is operational rather than theoretical: not a new theorem, but vocabulary and tools currently absent from cs.LG/stat.ML practice.

Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation in practice demands three properties simultaneously: heterogeneous effects τ(x), calibrated uncertainty over them, and robustness to the heavy tails that contaminate real outcome data. Meta-learners (Künzel et al., 2019) give (i); causal forests and BART give (i)-(ii) with Gaussian-tail assumptions; no widely used tool gives all three. We present Bayesian X-Learner, an X-Learner built on cross-fitted doubly robust pseudo-outcomes (Kennedy, 2020) with a full MCMC posterior over τ(x) via a Welsch redescending pseudo-likelihood. On Hill's IHDP benchmark the default configuration attains mean εPEHE = 0.56 on 5 replications (lowest mean; differences from S-/T-/X-learners, full-config Causal BART, and a causal forest baseline are not significant at α = 0.05, and rank ordering is unstable at 10 replications -- IHDP comparisons are competitive rather than dominant). On contaminated "whale" DGPs with up to 20-25% tail density, a one-flag extension (contamination_severity) that selects a Huberδ nuisance loss per Huber's minimax-δ relation recovers RMSE 0.13 with tight credible intervals (single-cross-fit 30-seed coverage 83% [Wilson 66%, 93%] at 20% density; modularBayes pooling with Bayesian-bootstrap nuisance draws restores nominal 95% coverage). We validate on the Hillstrom email-marketing RCT (N = 42,613), demonstrating consistent behaviour on real heavy-tailed outcome data, and report covariate-stratified τ(x) coverage across covariate quintiles to substantiate calibration for heterogeneous effects beyond scalar summaries. We draw a clean distinction between tails-as-contamination (handled by Welsch + Huber nuisance) and tails-as-signal (handled by a tail-aware CATE basis); an empirical probe confirms a tail-aware basis recovers τtail with full subgroup coverage, while the library's Hill-estimator path is contamination-directed and should not be used for heterogeneous τ. We map six empirical boundaries (contamination ceiling, clean-data efficiency cost, basis sensitivity, sample size, treatment type, compute) and show where other tools are preferable. Code and reproducible benchmarks are released.

Image classification accuracy on the ImageNet dataset has been a barometer for progress in computer vision over the last decade. Several recent papers have questioned the degree to which the benchmark remains useful to the community [33, 3, 31, 42, 36], yet innovations continue to contribute gains to performance, with today's largest models achieving 90%+ top-1 accuracy. To help contextualize progress on ImageNet and provide a more meaningful evaluation for today's stateof-the-art models, we manually review and categorize every remaining mistake that a few top models make and provide insights into the long-tail of errors on one of the most benchmarked datasets in computer vision. We focus on the multi-label subset evaluation of ImageNet, where today's best models achieve upwards of 97% top-1 accuracy. Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the supposed mistakes are not mistakes at all, and we uncover new valid multi-labels, demonstrating that, without careful review, we are significantly underestimating the performance of these models. On the other hand, we also find that today's best models still make a significant number of mistakes (40%) that are obviously wrong to human reviewers. To calibrate future progress on ImageNet, we provide an updated multilabel evaluation set, and we curate ImageNet-Major1: a 68-example "major error" slice of the obvious mistakes made by today's top models--a slice where models should achieve near perfection, but today are far from doing so.

To bridge this crucial gap, first, this paper presents a comprehensive benchmark suite to evaluate the out-of-distribution (OOD) performance of image compression methods.

In this work, we study the effect of occlusion on video action recognition.