Set-Valued Policy Learning

Conventional treatment policies map patient covariates to a single recommended intervention in order to maximize expected clinical outcomes. Although a rich body of causal inference methods has been developed to estimate such policies, point-valued recommendations can be highly sensitive to estimation uncertainty, model specification, and finite-sample variability, while typically providing little guidance about how confident one should be in the recommended action. In this work, we propose a set-valued policy learning paradigm for the multiple-treatment setting, in which policies output a set of plausible treatments rather than a single recommendation. This formulation enables intrinsic uncertainty quantification, with the size of the predicted set reflecting the degree of decision ambiguity. We extend the learning-to-defer framework to multiple treatments via a novel \textit{greatest Lower Bound} method, and introduce \textit{conformal policy learning}, which bridges the gap between unobserved ground-truth optimal treatments and estimated optimal treatment rules. Drawing on insights from the noisy-label literature, we develop a randomness-injection approach that guarantees marginal coverage without requiring assumptions on underlying black-box optimal treatment rules. Through experiments on synthetic data and a real-world application to In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), we demonstrate that our methods produce robust and actionable policies that naturally incorporate clinical considerations while effectively balancing performance and reliability.

Controllable User Simulation

Using offline datasets to evaluate conversational agents often fails to cover rare scenarios or to support testing new policies. This has motivated the use of controllable user simulators for targeted, counterfactual evaluation, typically implemented by prompting or fine-tuning large language models. In this work, we formalize controllable simulation as a causal inference problem. By bridging natural language evaluation with off-policy evaluation methodology, we show that the standard practice of training simulators via supervised fine-tuning on post-hoc trajectory labels yields a structurally biased model. Specifically, these labels are inextricably coupled to the data-generating behavior policy, injecting a look-ahead bias that breaks causal consistency. Furthermore, we prove that under policy shift this failure causes the variance of evaluation metrics to explode geometrically, a phenomenon we term controllability collapse. To restore causal consistency, we establish theoretical conditions for accurate simulation and propose practical training mitigations: a priori controls, step-wise dynamic controls, and direct policy-conditioned learning. Empirical evaluation confirms that while standard global controls distort conversational distributions and collapse behavioral diversity, our causally grounded simulators eliminate look-ahead bias, preserve natural variance, and exhibit robust zero-shot generalization to unseen agent behaviors.

Structured Hybrid Mechanistic Models for Robust Estimation of Time-Dependent Intervention Outcomes

Estimating intervention effects in dynamical systems is crucial for outcome optimization. In medicine, such interventions arise in physiological regulation (e.g., cardiovascular system under fluid administration) and pharmacokinetics, among others. Propofol administration is an anesthetic intervention, where the challenge is to estimate the optimal dose required to achieve a target brain concentration for anesthesia, given patient characteristics, while avoiding under- or over-dosing. The pharmacokinetic state is characterized by drug concentrations across tissues, and its dynamics are governed by prior states, patient covariates, drug clearance, and drug administration. While data-driven models can capture complex dynamics, they often fail in out-of-distribution (OOD) regimes. Mechanistic models on the other hand are typically robust, but might be oversimplified. We propose a hybrid mechanistic-data-driven approach to estimate time-dependent intervention outcomes. Our approach decomposes the dynamical system's transition operator into parametric and nonparametric components, further distinguishing between intervention-related and unrelated dynamics. This structure leverages mechanistic anchors while learning residual patterns from data. For scenarios where mechanistic parameters are unknown, we introduce a two-stage procedure: first, pre-training an encoder on simulated data, and subsequently learning corrections from observed data. Two regimes with incomplete mechanistic knowledge are considered: periodic pendulum and Propofol bolus injections. Results demonstrate that our hybrid approach outperforms purely data-driven and mechanistic approaches, particularly OOD. This work highlights the potential of hybrid mechanistic-data-driven models for robust intervention optimization in complex, real-world dynamical systems.

Preference-based Conditional Treatment Effects and Policy Learning

We introduce a new preference-based framework for conditional treatment effect estimation and policy learning, built on the Conditional Preference-based Treatment Effect (CPTE). CPTE requires only that outcomes be ranked under a preference rule, unlocking flexible modeling of heterogeneous effects with multivariate, ordinal, or preference-driven outcomes. This unifies applications such as conditional probability of necessity and sufficiency, conditional Win Ratio, and Generalized Pairwise Comparisons. Despite the intrinsic non-identifiability of comparison-based estimands, CPTE provides interpretable targets and delivers new identifiability conditions for previous unidentifiable estimands. We present estimation strategies via matching, quantile, and distributional regression, and further design efficient influence-function estimators to correct plug-in bias and maximize policy value. Synthetic and semi-synthetic experiments demonstrate clear performance gains and practical impact.

From Observational Data to Clinical Recommendations: A Causal Framework for Estimating Patient-level Treatment Effects and Learning Policies

We propose a framework for building patient-specific treatment recommendation models, building on the large recent literature on learning patient-level causal models and inspired by the target trial paradigm of Hernan and Robins. We focus on safety and validity, including the crucial issue of causal identification when using observational data. We do not provide a specific model, but rather a way to integrate existing methods and know-how into a practical pipeline. We further provide a real world use-case of treatment optimization for patients with heart failure who develop acute kidney injury during hospitalization. The results suggest our pipeline can improve patient outcomes over the current treatment regime.

Towards Regulatory-Confirmed Adaptive Clinical Trials: Machine Learning Opportunities and Solutions

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.

BIG-Bench Extra Hard

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in everyday applications, demanding robust general reasoning capabilities and diverse reasoning skillset. However, current LLM reasoning benchmarks predominantly focus on mathematical and coding abilities, leaving a gap in evaluating broader reasoning proficiencies. One particular exception is the BIG-Bench dataset, which has served as a crucial benchmark for evaluating the general reasoning capabilities of LLMs, thanks to its diverse set of challenging tasks that allowed for a comprehensive assessment of general reasoning across various skills within a unified framework. However, recent advances in LLMs have led to saturation on BIG-Bench, and its harder version BIG-Bench Hard (BBH). State-of-the-art models achieve near-perfect scores on many tasks in BBH, thus diminishing its utility. To address this limitation, we introduce BIG-Bench Extra Hard (BBEH), a new benchmark designed to push the boundaries of LLM reasoning evaluation. BBEH replaces each task in BBH with a novel task that probes a similar reasoning capability but exhibits significantly increased difficulty. We evaluate various models on BBEH and observe a (harmonic) average accuracy of 9.8\% for the best general-purpose model and 44.8\% for the best reasoning-specialized model, indicating substantial room for improvement and highlighting the ongoing challenge of achieving robust general reasoning in LLMs. We release BBEH publicly at: https://github.com/google-deepmind/bbeh.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effect in Time-to-Event Outcomes: Harnessing Censored Data with Recursively Imputed Trees

Tailoring treatments to individual needs is a central goal in fields such as medicine. A key step toward this goal is estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects (HTE) - the way treatments impact different subgroups. While crucial, HTE estimation is challenging with survival data, where time until an event (e.g., death) is key. Existing methods often assume complete observation, an assumption violated in survival data due to right-censoring, leading to bias and inefficiency. Cui et al. (2023) proposed a doubly-robust method for HTE estimation in survival data under no hidden confounders, combining a causal survival forest with an augmented inverse-censoring weighting estimator. However, we find it struggles under heavy censoring, which is common in rare-outcome problems such as Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Moreover, most current methods cannot handle instrumental variables, which are a crucial tool in the causal inference arsenal. We introduce Multiple Imputation for Survival Treatment Response (MISTR), a novel, general, and non-parametric method for estimating HTE in survival data. MISTR uses recursively imputed survival trees to handle censoring without directly modeling the censoring mechanism. Through extensive simulations and analysis of two real-world datasets-the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 175 and the Illinois unemployment dataset we show that MISTR outperforms prior methods under heavy censoring in the no-hidden-confounders setting, and extends to the instrumental variable setting. To our knowledge, MISTR is the first non-parametric approach for HTE estimation with unobserved confounders via instrumental variables.

On the ERM Principle in Meta-Learning

Classic supervised learning involves algorithms trained on $n$ labeled examples to produce a hypothesis $h \in \mathcal{H}$ aimed at performing well on unseen examples. Meta-learning extends this by training across $n$ tasks, with $m$ examples per task, producing a hypothesis class $\mathcal{H}$ within some meta-class $\mathbb{H}$. This setting applies to many modern problems such as in-context learning, hypernetworks, and learning-to-learn. A common method for evaluating the performance of supervised learning algorithms is through their learning curve, which depicts the expected error as a function of the number of training examples. In meta-learning, the learning curve becomes a two-dimensional learning surface, which evaluates the expected error on unseen domains for varying values of $n$ (number of tasks) and $m$ (number of training examples). Our findings characterize the distribution-free learning surfaces of meta-Empirical Risk Minimizers when either $m$ or $n$ tend to infinity: we show that the number of tasks must increase inversely with the desired error. In contrast, we show that the number of examples exhibits very different behavior: it satisfies a dichotomy where every meta-class conforms to one of the following conditions: (i) either $m$ must grow inversely with the error, or (ii) a \emph{finite} number of examples per task suffices for the error to vanish as $n$ goes to infinity. This finding illustrates and characterizes cases in which a small number of examples per task is sufficient for successful learning. We further refine this for positive values of $\varepsilon$ and identify for each $\varepsilon$ how many examples per task are needed to achieve an error of $\varepsilon$ in the limit as the number of tasks $n$ goes to infinity. We achieve this by developing a necessary and sufficient condition for meta-learnability using a bounded number of examples per domain.

Is merging worth it? Securely evaluating the information gain for causal dataset acquisition

Merging datasets across institutions is a lengthy and costly procedure, especially when it involves private information. Data hosts may therefore want to prospectively gauge which datasets are most beneficial to merge with, without revealing sensitive information. For causal estimation this is particularly challenging as the value of a merge will depend not only on the reduction in epistemic uncertainty but also the improvement in overlap. To address this challenge, we introduce the first cryptographically secure information-theoretic approach for quantifying the value of a merge in the context of heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. We do this by evaluating the Expected Information Gain (EIG) and utilising multi-party computation to ensure it can be securely computed without revealing any raw data. As we demonstrate, this can be used with differential privacy (DP) to ensure privacy requirements whilst preserving more accurate computation than naive DP alone. To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first privacy-preserving method for dataset acquisition tailored to causal estimation. We demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of our method on a range of simulated and realistic benchmarks. The code is available anonymously.