A Statistical Test for the Benefits of Personalizing Interventions

From medicine to marketing to social sciences, the promise of tailoring interventions to individuals is undeniable. However, practical applications force weighing personalization's potential benefits with its possible increased cost and fragility. We introduce a statistical hypothesis test that evaluates, given historical data, evidence that a personalized intervention policy's performance will surpass deploying the best single intervention. The test maintains strict type-I error control while achieving asymptotic normality with the minimal possible variance under specified conditions. Results on diverse datasets from job training, depression treatment, education and recommendation systems demonstrate the test's versatility and its superior performance over alternatives. This test can support decision-makers throughout the intervention sciences by providing a simple and powerful quantification of the potential benefits of personalization.

When are LLMs Sufficient Policy Optimizers for Sequential RL Tasks?

We study when large language models (LLMs) can serve as effective black-box policy optimizers for reinforcement learning (RL) tasks, i.e., when can we replace classical RL algorithms with an LLM? We explore this question by introducing Prompted Policy Optimization (PromptPO), an iterative method that prompts an LLM with Python descriptions of the state space, action space, and reward function, then has it generate and refine executable policies based on rollout feedback. Across hard exploration environments, Meta-World robotics tasks, and several real-world control problems, PromptPO often matches or exceeds the performance of standard RL baselines while using substantially fewer environment interactions. To maximize expected return, and without further explicit prompting, the policies PromptPO outputs range from tuned proportional controllers or rule-based plans to policies that run planning algorithms like value iteration. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based policy optimization is sufficient when the LLM can leverage prior knowledge about the environment or optimization strategy. PromptPO underperforms standard RL baselines in MuJoCo domains. This demonstrates possible limitations of LLM-based policy optimization to settings that requiring fine-grained continuous control.

Active Learning for Stochastic Contextual Linear Bandits

A key goal in stochastic contextual linear bandits is to efficiently learn a near-optimal policy. Prior algorithms for this problem learn a policy by strategically sampling actions but naively (passively) sampling contexts from the underlying context distribution. However, in many practical scenarios -- including online content recommendation, survey research, and clinical trials -- practitioners can actively sample or recruit contexts based on prior knowledge of the context distribution. Despite this potential for active learning, the role of strategic context sampling in stochastic contextual linear bandits is underexplored. We propose an algorithm that learns a near-optimal policy by strategically sampling rewards of context-action pairs. We prove instance-dependent theoretical guarantees demonstrating that our active context sampling strategy can improve over the minimax rate by up to a factor of $\sqrt{d}$, where $d$ is the linear dimension. We show empirically that our algorithm reduces the number of samples needed to learn a near-optimal policy, in tasks such as warfarin dose prediction and joke recommendation.

GIANTS: Generative Insight Anticipation from Scientific Literature

Scientific breakthroughs often emerge from synthesizing prior ideas into novel contributions. While language models (LMs) show promise in scientific discovery, their ability to perform this targeted, literature-grounded synthesis remains underexplored. We introduce insight anticipation, a generation task in which a model predicts a downstream paper's core insight from its foundational parent papers. To evaluate this capability, we develop GiantsBench, a benchmark of 17k examples across eight scientific domains, where each example consists of a set of parent papers paired with the core insight of a downstream paper. We evaluate models using an LM judge that scores similarity between generated and ground-truth insights, and show that these similarity scores correlate with expert human ratings. Finally, we present GIANTS-4B, an LM trained via reinforcement learning (RL) to optimize insight anticipation using these similarity scores as a proxy reward. Despite its smaller open-source architecture, GIANTS-4B outperforms proprietary baselines and generalizes to unseen domains, achieving a 34% relative improvement in similarity score over gemini-3-pro. Human evaluations further show that GIANTS-4B produces insights that are more conceptually clear than those of the base model. In addition, SciJudge-30B, a third-party model trained to compare research abstracts by likely citation impact, predicts that insights generated by GIANTS-4B are more likely to lead to higher citations, preferring them over the base model in 68% of pairwise comparisons. We release our code, benchmark, and model to support future research in automated scientific discovery.

Generative Experiences for Digital Mental Health Interventions: Evidence from a Randomized Study

Digital mental health (DMH) tools have extensively explored personalization of interventions to users' needs and contexts. However, this personalization often targets what support is provided, not how it is experienced. Even well-matched content can fail when the interaction format misaligns with how someone can engage. We introduce generative experience as a paradigm for DMH support, where the intervention experience is composed at runtime. We instantiate this in GUIDE, a system that generates personalized intervention content and multimodal interaction structure through rubric-guided generation of modular components. In a preregistered study with N = 237 participants, GUIDE significantly reduced stress (p = .02) and improved the user experience (p = .04) compared to an LLM-based cognitive restructuring control. GUIDE also supported diverse forms of reflection and action through varied interaction flows, while revealing tensions around personalization across the interaction sequence. This work lays the foundation for interventions that dynamically shape how support is experienced and enacted in digital settings.

PERRY: Policy Evaluation with Confidence Intervals using Auxiliary Data

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) methods aim to estimate the value of a new reinforcement learning (RL) policy prior to deployment. Recent advances have shown that leveraging auxiliary datasets, such as those synthesized by generative models, can improve the accuracy of these value estimates. Unfortunately, such auxiliary datasets may also be biased, and existing methods for using data augmentation for OPE in RL lack principled uncertainty quantification. In high stakes settings like healthcare, reliable uncertainty estimates are important for comparing policy value estimates. In this work, we propose two approaches to construct valid confidence intervals for OPE when using data augmentation. The first provides a confidence interval over the policy performance conditioned on a particular initial state $V^{\pi}(s_0)$-- such intervals are particularly important for human-centered applications. To do so we introduce a new conformal prediction method for high dimensional state MDPs. Second, we consider the more common task of estimating the average policy performance over many initial states; to do so we draw on ideas from doubly robust estimation and prediction powered inference. Across simulators spanning robotics, healthcare and inventory management, and a real healthcare dataset from MIMIC-IV, we find that our methods can use augmented data and still consistently produce intervals that cover the ground truth values, unlike previously proposed methods.

Predicting Long Term Sequential Policy Value Using Softer Surrogates

Performing policy evaluation in education, healthcare and online commerce can be challenging, because it can require waiting substantial amounts of time to observe outcomes over the desired horizon of interest. While offline evaluation methods can be used to estimate the performance of a new decision policy from historical data in some cases, such methods struggle when the new policy involves novel actions or is being run in a new decision process with potentially different dynamics. Here we consider how to estimate the full-horizon value of a new decision policy using only short-horizon data from the new policy, and historical full-horizon data from a different behavior policy. We introduce two new estimators for this setting, including a doubly robust estimator, and provide formal analysis of their properties. Our empirical results on two realistic simulators, of HIV treatment and sepsis treatment, show that our methods can often provide informative estimates of a new decision policy ten times faster than waiting for the full horizon, highlighting that it may be possible to quickly identify if a new decision policy, involving new actions, is better or worse than existing past policies.

Predicting Long-Term Student Outcomes from Short-Term EdTech Log Data

Educational stakeholders are often particularly interested in sparse, delayed student outcomes, like end-of-year statewide exams. The rare occurrence of such assessments makes it harder to identify students likely to fail such assessments, as well as making it slow for researchers and educators to be able to assess the effectiveness of particular educational tools. Prior work has primarily focused on using logs from students full usage (e.g. year-long) of an educational product to predict outcomes, or considered predictive accuracy using a few minutes to predict outcomes after a short (e.g. 1 hour) session. In contrast, we investigate machine learning predictors using students' logs during their first few hours of usage can provide useful predictive insight into those students' end-of-school year external assessment. We do this on three diverse datasets: from students in Uganda using a literacy game product, and from students in the US using two mathematics intelligent tutoring systems. We consider various measures of the accuracy of the resulting predictors, including its ability to identify students at different parts along the assessment performance distribution. Our findings suggest that short-term log usage data, from 2-5 hours, can be used to provide valuable signal about students' long-term external performance.

Psychometric Alignment: Capturing Human Knowledge Distributions via Language Models

Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to simulate human-like responses in scenarios where accurately mimicking a population's behavior can guide decision-making, such as in developing educational materials and designing public policies. The objective of these simulations is for LMs to capture the variations in human responses, rather than merely providing the expected correct answers. Prior work has shown that LMs often generate unrealistically accurate responses, but there are no established metrics to quantify how closely the knowledge distribution of LMs aligns with that of humans. To address this, we introduce "psychometric alignment," a metric that measures the extent to which LMs reflect human knowledge distribution. Assessing this alignment involves collecting responses from both LMs and humans to the same set of test items and using Item Response Theory to analyze the differences in item functioning between the groups. We demonstrate that our metric can capture important variations in populations that traditional metrics, like differences in accuracy, fail to capture. We apply this metric to assess existing LMs for their alignment with human knowledge distributions across three real-world domains. We find significant misalignment between LMs and human populations, though using persona-based prompts can improve alignment. Interestingly, smaller LMs tend to achieve greater psychometric alignment than larger LMs. Further, training LMs on human response data from the target distribution enhances their psychometric alignment on unseen test items, but the effectiveness of such training varies across domains.

Short-Long Policy Evaluation with Novel Actions

From incorporating LLMs in education, to identifying new drugs and improving ways to charge batteries, innovators constantly try new strategies in search of better long-term outcomes for students, patients and consumers. One major bottleneck in this innovation cycle is the amount of time it takes to observe the downstream effects of a decision policy that incorporates new interventions. The key question is whether we can quickly evaluate long-term outcomes of a new decision policy without making long-term observations. Organizations often have access to prior data about past decision policies and their outcomes, evaluated over the full horizon of interest. Motivated by this, we introduce a new setting for short-long policy evaluation for sequential decision making tasks. Our proposed methods significantly outperform prior results on simulators of HIV treatment, kidney dialysis and battery charging. We also demonstrate that our methods can be useful for applications in AI safety by quickly identifying when a new decision policy is likely to have substantially lower performance than past policies.