Javier Abad

Randomized experiments are the preferred approach for evaluating the effects of interventions, but they are costly and often yield estimates with substantial uncertainty. On the other hand, in silico experiments leveraging foundation models offer a cost-effective alternative that can potentially attain higher statistical precision. However, the benefits of in silico experiments come with a significant risk: statistical inferences are not valid if the models fail to accurately predict experimental responses to interventions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that integrates the predictions from multiple foundation models with experimental data while preserving valid statistical inference. Our estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal, with asymptotic variance no larger than the standard estimator based on experimental data alone. Importantly, these statistical properties hold even when model predictions are arbitrarily biased. Empirical results across several randomized experiments show that our estimator offers substantial precision gains, equivalent to a reduction of up to 20% in the sample size needed to match the same precision as the standard estimator based on experimental data alone.

Practical and ethical constraints often dictate the use of observational data for causal inference, particularly in medicine and social sciences. Yet, observational datasets are prone to confounding, potentially compromising the validity of conclusions. While adjusting for all available covariates is a common corrective strategy, this approach can introduce bias, especially when post-treatment variables are present or some variables remain unobserved—a frequent scenario in practice. Avoiding this bias often requires detailed knowledge of the underlying causal graph, a challenging and often impractical prerequisite. In this work, we propose RAMEN, an algorithm that tackles this challenge by leveraging the heterogeneity of multiple data sources without the need to know the complete causal graph. Notably, RAMEN achieves doubly robust identification: we identify the treatment effect if either the causal parents of the treatment or those of the outcome are observed. Empirical evaluations across synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world datasets show that our approach significantly outperforms existing methods.

The risk of language models reproducing copyrighted material from their training data has led to the development of various protective measures. Among these, inference-time strategies that impose constraints via post-processing have shown promise in addressing the complexities of copyright regulation. However, they often incur prohibitive computational costs or suffer from performance trade-offs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Copyright-Protecting Model Fusion (CP-Fuse), a novel approach that combines models trained on disjoint sets of copyrighted material during inference. In particular, CP-Fuse adaptively aggregates the model outputs to minimize the reproduction of copyrighted content, adhering to a crucial balancing property that prevents the regurgitation of memorized data. Through extensive experiments, we show that CP-Fuse significantly reduces the reproduction of protected material without compromising the quality of text and code generation. Moreover, its post-hoc nature allows seamless integration with other protective measures, further enhancing copyright safeguards. Lastly, we show that CP-Fuse is robust against common techniques for extracting training data.

We present a novel approach for differentially private data synthesis of protected tabular datasets, a relevant task in highly sensitive domains such as healthcare and government. Current state-of-the-art methods predominantly use marginal-based approaches, where a dataset is generated from private estimates of the marginals. In this paper, we introduce PrivPGD, a new generation method for marginal-based private data synthesis, leveraging tools from optimal transport and particle gradient descent. Our algorithm outperforms existing methods on a large range of datasets while being highly scalable and offering the flexibility to incorporate additional domain-specific constraints.

Randomized trials are considered the gold standard for making informed decisions in medicine, yet they often lack generalizability to the patient populations in clinical practice. Observational studies, on the other hand, cover a broader patient population but are prone to various biases. Thus, before using an observational study for decision-making, it is crucial to benchmark its treatment effect estimates against those derived from a randomized trial. We propose a novel strategy to benchmark observational studies beyond the average treatment effect. First, we design a statistical test for the null hypothesis that the treatment effects estimated from the two studies, conditioned on a set of relevant features, differ up to some tolerance. We then estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the maximum bias strength for any subgroup in the observational study. Finally, we validate our benchmarking strategy in a real-world setting and show that it leads to conclusions that align with established medical knowledge.

In the era of fast-paced precision medicine, observational studies play a major role in properly evaluating new drugs in clinical practice. Yet, unobserved confounding can significantly compromise causal conclusions from observational data. We propose a novel strategy to quantify unobserved confounding by leveraging randomized trials. First, we design a statistical test to detect unobserved confounding with strength above a given threshold. Then, we use the test to estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the unobserved confounding strength. We evaluate the power and validity of our statistical test on several synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets. Further, we show how our lower bound can correctly identify the absence and presence of unobserved confounding in a real-world setting.