Frequentist Consistency of Prior-Data Fitted Networks for Causal Inference

Foundation models based on prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have shown strong empirical performance in causal inference by framing the task as an in-context learning problem.However, it is unclear whether PFN-based causal estimators provide uncertainty quantification that is consistent with classical frequentist estimators. In this work, we address this gap by analyzing the frequentist consistency of PFN-based estimators for the average treatment effect (ATE). (1) We show that existing PFNs, when interpreted as Bayesian ATE estimators, can exhibit prior-induced confounding bias: the prior is not asymptotically overwritten by data, which, in turn, prevents frequentist consistency. (2) As a remedy, we suggest employing a calibration procedure based on a one-step posterior correction (OSPC). We show that the OSPC helps to restore frequentist consistency and can yield a semi-parametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem for calibrated PFNs (i.e., both the calibrated PFN-based estimators and the classical semi-parametric efficient estimators converge in distribution with growing data size). (3) Finally, we implement OSPC through tailoring martingale posteriors on top of the PFNs. In this way, we are able to recover functional nuisance posteriors from PFNs, required by the OSPC. In multiple (semi-)synthetic experiments, PFNs calibrated with our martingale posterior OSPC produce ATE uncertainty that (i) asymptotically matches frequentist uncertainty and (ii) is well calibrated in finite samples in comparison to other Bayesian ATE estimators.

Generalized Bayes for Causal Inference

Uncertainty quantification is central to many applications of causal machine learning, yet principled Bayesian inference for causal effects remains challenging. Standard Bayesian approaches typically require specifying a probabilistic model for the data-generating process, including high-dimensional nuisance components such as propensity scores and outcome regressions. Standard posteriors are thus vulnerable to strong modeling choices, including complex prior elicitation. In this paper, we propose a generalized Bayesian framework for causal inference. Our framework avoids explicit likelihood modeling; instead, we place priors directly on the causal estimands and update these using an identification-driven loss function, which yields generalized posteriors for causal effects. As a result, our framework turns existing loss-based causal estimators into estimators with full uncertainty quantification. Our framework is flexible and applicable to a broad range of causal estimands (e.g., ATE, CATE). Further, our framework can be applied on top of state-of-the-art causal machine learning pipelines (e.g., Neyman-orthogonal meta-learners). For Neyman-orthogonal losses, we show that the generalized posteriors converge to their oracle counterparts and remain robust to first-stage nuisance estimation error. With calibration, we thus obtain valid frequentist uncertainty even when nuisance estimators converge at slower-than-parametric rates. Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed framework offers causal effect estimation with calibrated uncertainty across several causal inference settings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first flexible framework for constructing generalized Bayesian posteriors for causal machine learning.

Detecting and Mitigating Group Bias in Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) are increasingly estimated using machine learning models that produce highly personalized predictions of treatment effects. In practice, however, predicted treatment effects are rarely interpreted, reported, or audited at the individual level but, instead, are often aggregated to broader subgroups, such as demographic segments, risk strata, or markets. We show that such aggregation can induce systematic bias of the group-level causal effect: even when models for predicting the individual-level conditional average treatment effect (CATE) are correctly specified and trained on data from randomized experiments, aggregating the predicted CATEs up to the group level does not, in general, recover the corresponding group average treatment effect (GATE). We develop a unified statistical framework to detect and mitigate this form of group bias in randomized experiments. We first define group bias as the discrepancy between the model-implied and experimentally identified GATEs, derive an asymptotically normal estimator, and then provide a simple-to-implement statistical test. For mitigation, we propose a shrinkage-based bias-correction, and show that the theoretically optimal and empirically feasible solutions have closed-form expressions. The framework is fully general, imposes minimal assumptions, and only requires computing sample moments. We analyze the economic implications of mitigating detected group bias for profit-maximizing personalized targeting, thereby characterizing when bias correction alters targeting decisions and profits, and the trade-offs involved. Applications to large-scale experimental data at major digital platforms validate our theoretical results and demonstrate empirical performance.

MedClarify: An information-seeking AI agent for medical diagnosis with case-specific follow-up questions

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for diagnostic tasks in medicine. In clinical practice, the correct diagnosis can rarely be immediately inferred from the initial patient presentation alone. Rather, reaching a diagnosis often involves systematic history taking, during which clinicians reason over multiple potential conditions through iterative questioning to resolve uncertainty. This process requires considering differential diagnoses and actively excluding emergencies that demand immediate intervention. Yet, the ability of medical LLMs to generate informative follow-up questions and thus reason over differential diagnoses remains underexplored. Here, we introduce MedClarify, an AI agent for information-seeking that can generate follow-up questions for iterative reasoning to support diagnostic decision-making. Specifically, MedClarify computes a list of candidate diagnoses analogous to a differential diagnosis, and then proactively generates follow-up questions aimed at reducing diagnostic uncertainty. By selecting the question with the highest expected information gain, MedClarify enables targeted, uncertainty-aware reasoning to improve diagnostic performance. In our experiments, we first demonstrate the limitations of current LLMs in medical reasoning, which often yield multiple, similarly likely diagnoses, especially when patient cases are incomplete or relevant information for diagnosis is missing. We then show that our information-theoretic reasoning approach can generate effective follow-up questioning and thereby reduces diagnostic errors by ~27 percentage points (p.p.) compared to a standard single-shot LLM baseline. Altogether, MedClarify offers a path to improve medical LLMs through agentic information-seeking and to thus promote effective dialogues with medical LLMs that reflect the iterative and uncertain nature of real-world clinical reasoning.

ProbeLLM: Automating Principled Diagnosis of LLM Failures

Understanding how and why large language models (LLMs) fail is becoming a central challenge as models rapidly evolve and static evaluations fall behind. While automated probing has been enabled by dynamic test generation, existing approaches often discover isolated failure cases, lack principled control over exploration, and provide limited insight into the underlying structure of model weaknesses. We propose ProbeLLM, a benchmark-agnostic automated probing framework that elevates weakness discovery from individual failures to structured failure modes. ProbeLLM formulates probing as a hierarchical Monte Carlo Tree Search, explicitly allocating limited probing budgets between global exploration of new failure regions and local refinement of recurring error patterns. By restricting probing to verifiable test cases and leveraging tool-augmented generation and verification, ProbeLLM grounds failure discovery in reliable evidence. Discovered failures are further consolidated into interpretable failure modes via failure-aware embeddings and boundary-aware induction. Across diverse benchmarks and LLMs, ProbeLLM reveals substantially broader, cleaner, and more fine-grained failure landscapes than static benchmarks and prior automated methods, supporting a shift from case-centric evaluation toward principled weakness discovery.

Synthetic Interaction Data for Scalable Personalization in Large Language Models

Personalized prompting offers large opportunities for deploying large language models (LLMs) to diverse users, yet existing prompt optimization methods primarily focus on task-level optimization while largely overlooking user-specific preferences and latent constraints of individual users. This gap is primarily due to (i) the absence of high-quality, privacy-sensitive data that capture personalized user-LLM interactions at scale, and (ii) the lack of robust reward signals for individual preferences. To overcome existing data limitations, we introduce a high-fidelity synthetic data generation framework called PersonaGym. Unlike prior work that treats personalization as static persona-preference pairs, PersonaGym models a dynamic preference process via an agentic LLM system to simulate realistic preference behaviors and semantic-aware noise in order to generate personalized multi-turn interaction trajectories. Using PersonaGym, we release PersonaAtlas, a large-scale, high-quality, and diverse synthetic dataset of high-fidelity multi-turn personalized interaction trajectories that closely mirror real-world preference expression and noise patterns. We further propose Personalized Prompt Optimization (PPOpt), a scalable and model-agnostic framework that optimizes user prompts based on interaction histories without modifying the deployed LLM. PPOpt adopts a reason-then-optimize paradigm that infers an explicit user profile and conditions prompt rewriting on the user profile to avoid reward hacking. Our training procedure for PPOpt integrates a cold-start supervised prior with outcome-driven multi-objective reinforcement learning. We present extensive experiments to demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of task performance, personalization quality, and robustness to noisy as well as to sparse preference signals.

Targeted Synthetic Control Method

The synthetic control method (SCM) estimates causal effects in panel data with a single-treated unit by constructing a counterfactual outcome as a weighted combination of untreated control units that matches the pre-treatment trajectory. In this paper, we introduce the targeted synthetic control (TSC) method, a new two-stage estimator that directly estimates the counterfactual outcome. Specifically, our TSC method (1) yields a targeted debiasing estimator, in the sense that the targeted updating refines the initial weights to produce more stable weights; and (2) ensures that the final counterfactual estimation is a convex combination of observed control outcomes to enable direct interpretation of the synthetic control weights. TSC is flexible and can be instantiated with arbitrary machine learning models. Methodologically, TSC starts from an initial set of synthetic-control weights via a one-dimensional targeted update through the weight-tilting submodel, which calibrates the weights to reduce bias of weights estimation arising from pre-treatment fit. Furthermore, TSC avoids key shortcomings of existing methods (e.g., the augmented SCM), which can produce unbounded counterfactual estimates. Across extensive synthetic and real-world experiments, TSC consistently improves estimation accuracy over state-of-the-art SCM baselines.

Rank-Learner: Orthogonal Ranking of Treatment Effects

Many decision-making problems require ranking individuals by their treatment effects rather than estimating the exact effect magnitudes. Examples include prioritizing patients for preventive care interventions, or ranking customers by the expected incremental impact of an advertisement. Surprisingly, while causal effect estimation has received substantial attention in the literature, the problem of directly learning rankings of treatment effects has largely remained unexplored. In this paper, we introduce Rank-Learner, a novel two-stage learner that directly learns the ranking of treatment effects from observational data. We first show that naive approaches based on precise treatment effect estimation solve a harder problem than necessary for ranking, while our Rank-Learner optimizes a pairwise learning objective that recovers the true treatment effect ordering, without explicit CATE estimation. We further show that our Rank-Learner is Neyman-orthogonal and thus comes with strong theoretical guarantees, including robustness to estimation errors in the nuisance functions. In addition, our Rank-Learner is model-agnostic, and can be instantiated with arbitrary machine learning models (e.g., neural networks). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments where Rank-Learner consistently outperforms standard CATE estimators and non-orthogonal ranking methods. Overall, we provide practitioners with a new, orthogonal two-stage learner for ranking individuals by their treatment effects.

Causal Inference on Networks under Misspecified Exposure Mappings: A Partial Identification Framework

Estimating treatment effects in networks is challenging, as each potential outcome depends on the treatments of all other nodes in the network. To overcome this difficulty, existing methods typically impose an exposure mapping that compresses the treatment assignments in the network into a low-dimensional summary. However, if this mapping is misspecified, standard estimators for direct and spillover effects can be severely biased. We propose a novel partial identification framework for causal inference on networks to assess the robustness of treatment effects under misspecifications of the exposure mapping. Specifically, we derive sharp upper and lower bounds on direct and spillover effects under such misspecifications. As such, our framework presents a novel application of causal sensitivity analysis to exposure mappings. We instantiate our framework for three canonical exposure settings widely used in practice: (i) weighted means of the neighborhood treatments, (ii) threshold-based exposure mappings, and (iii) truncated neighborhood interference in the presence of higher-order spillovers. Furthermore, we develop orthogonal estimators for these bounds and prove that the resulting bound estimates are valid, sharp, and efficient. Our experiments show the bounds remain informative and provide reliable conclusions under misspecification of exposure mappings.

Nonparametric LLM Evaluation from Preference Data

Evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) from human preference data is crucial for obtaining LLM leaderboards. However, many existing approaches either rely on restrictive parametric assumptions or lack valid uncertainty quantification when flexible machine learning methods are used. In this paper, we propose a nonparametric statistical framework, DMLEval, for comparing and ranking LLMs from preference data using debiased machine learning (DML). For this, we introduce generalized average ranking scores (GARS), which generalize commonly used ranking models, including the Bradley-Terry model or PageRank/ Rank centrality, with complex human responses such as ties. DMLEval comes with the following advantages: (i) It produces statistically efficient estimates of GARS ranking scores. (ii) It naturally allows the incorporation of black-box machine learning methods for estimation. (iii) It can be combined with pre-trained LLM evaluators (e.g., using LLM-as-a-judge). (iv) It suggests optimal policies for collecting preference data under budget constraints. We demonstrate these advantages both theoretically and empirically using both synthetic and real-world preference datasets. In summary, our framework provides practitioners with powerful, state-of-the-art methods for comparing or ranking LLMs.